MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6884635163 · doi:10.11575/prism/30026

Location Lottery: An Evaluation of the Economic Regions of Employment Insurance

2014· other· en· W6884635163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentPopulationDiscouraged workerIncome protection insuranceArgument (complex analysis)Matching (statistics)Insurance policyCurrent Population SurveyMetric (unit)National Insurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eligibility of Employment Insurance (El) is partially determined by the area in which the applicant lives. Based upon address, an individual can receive anywhere from 14- 45 weeks of benefits with different levels of required insurable hours to qualify. The result is that the current regional policy leads to different coverage levels, and can prevent workers who have paid into the system from collecting benefits. Yet despite this, the way in which the district boundaries are determined is unclear, and has been accused of being used for political gain. The majority of analysis on the regional nature of El has focused on which provinces benefit from the status quo, but research into how the districts compare with each other has not been forthcoming. This capstone endeavors to add to debate about how Employment Insurance is administered in Canada. To compare the current 58 El districts to each other, both population and standard deviation of unemployment rate have been compiled. Figures were compiled from the National Household Survey, which is collected from Statistics Canada every five years. This metric allows for more comprehensive analysis than would have been provided through studying the monthly Labour Force Survey. The majority of analysis was conducted across an urban-rural lens to determine if one method of district creation was more likely to capture a single labour market. The main policy argument behind the regional program is that different labour markets should have differed program access. Under the current program, this ideal is being obscured in favour of administrative ease. The status quo more closely resembles an informal redistribution program that benefits some areas at the expense of others. justification for the boundaries is nonexistent in the public sphere beyond platitudes, allowing for the potential for political interference. In order to improve the system, the boundary review process should become more transparent so that it can be evaluated independent of government. Longer term, Service Canada should find a new way of operationalizing the labour market in a way that more closely reflects the economic diversity. If they are unable to devise another framework that is administratively feasible, serious consideration should be given to reforming the qualification requirements for Employment Insurance.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→