MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406802496 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2024-012

Added Worker Effects in Canada: The Effect of Spousal Job Loss on Transitions into Employment

2025· article· fr· W4406802496 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ana Ferrer, Yazhuo Pan, Tammy Schirle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob lossLabour economicsDemographic economicsPsychologyEconomicsUnemploymentEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous examinons les effets de travailleurs supplémentaires au Canada à l'aide de l'Enquête sur la population active. À la marge extensive, nous notons que les femmes qui n'ont pas d'emploi sont plus susceptibles de se trouver un emploi au cours du mois suivant la perte d'emploi de leur conjoint.e. La perte d'emploi du/de la conjoint.e n'a pas d'effet sur la transition des femmes vers l'emploi au cours des prochains mois et on ne note pas d'effet significatif pour les hommes. Les effets ne semblent pas représenter une réponse comportementale à la mise à pied imprévue ou exogène du/de la conjoint.e. Plutôt, les femmes qui sont les plus susceptibles d'obtenir et de quitter un emploi ont un.e conjoint.e qui est plus susceptible de faire l'objet d'un licenciement prévu par la famille, et elles sont prêtes à réagir. L'effet de travailleur supplémentaire est plus prononcé lorsqu'il s'agit de femmes plus éduquées, de propriétaires de maison et lorsque le salaire du/de la conjoint.e est plus élevé. À la marge intensive, nous ne notons pas de changement significatif dans les heures travaillées par les personnes ayant un emploi, lorsque leur conjoint.e a été licencié.e.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207