MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414892826 · doi:10.1080/01615440.2025.2556100

Measuring socioeconomic status in historical censuses of Canada

2025· article· en· W4414892826 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shari Eli, Nicholas Li, Janki Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Methods A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsBank of CanadaToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversité de MontréalUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusCensusHistorical demographyDemographic analysisResearch methodologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use the new complete count Canadian Census records spanning from 1871 to 1901 to explore measures of socioeconomic status including income, occupation, and literacy, which scholars commonly use to investigate economic mobility and inequality. We first explore the availability and comparability of measures across census years. Then, using individuals in the 1901 Census which contains wages, we document selection into the wage sample as well as the characteristics of individuals found in different segments of the wage distribution. Lastly, auxiliary status measures from social registers and probate records are explored for those in occupations where income is under-enumerated.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 venueHistorical Methods A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary HistorySame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207