MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Constructing an Enhanced Unemployment Model in Canada, Using ARDL

2025· article· en· W4413399571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Halimahton Borhan, Azhana Othman, Geetha Subramaniam, Rozita Naina Mohamed, Abdul Rahim Ridzuan

Bibliographic record

VenueSMART Journal of Business Management Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentMathematicsEconometricsEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unemployment rate in Canada has been increasing from 2019 to 2023 and this high volatility of Canada’s unemployment rate has drawn researchers’ attention in recent times. Quarterly data from OECD Data, World Bank, IMF Data and DataStream, were collected from 1993 to 2023, to examine the factors affecting unemployment rate in Canada, using the Unit Root Test and the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) approach. ARDL was used to study the long run effect between unemployment rate and related factors. This approach can be used only when Unit Root Test had been applied. The results of the study revealed that only Gross Domestic Product (GDP) reported a short run causality with the unemployment rate in Canada while other independent variables did not. The study indicated no long run causality relationship between all independent variables, namely population, GDP, inflation, foreign direct investment and average wages, as the F-statistics was below the threshold value. This study added a new independent variable, that is average wages, in the study of unemployment rate in Canada. This study covered the period from 1993 until 2023.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMART Journal of Business Management Studies→Same topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality→French-language works237,207→