MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950669748 · doi:10.5683/sp3/dszvjs

Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2018 [Canada]

2019· dataset· en· W6950669748 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvey of Income and Program ParticipationSurvey data collectionCurrent Population SurveyJob lossHousehold incomeRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of this survey is to study the coverage of the employment insurance program. It provides a meaningful picture of who does or does not have access to EI benefits among the jobless and those in a situation of underemployment. The Employment Insurance Coverage Survey also covers access to maternity and parental benefits. The survey was designed to produce a series of precise measures to identify groups with low probability of receiving benefits, for instance, the long-term jobless, labour market entrants and students, people becoming unemployed after uninsured employment, people who have left jobs voluntarily and individuals who are eligible, given their employment history, but do not claim or otherwise receive benefits. The survey provides a detailed description of the characteristics of the last job held as well as reasons for not receiving benefits or for not claiming. Through the survey data, analysts will also be able to observe the characteristics and situation of people not covered by EI and of those who exhausted EI benefits, the job search intensity of the unemployed, expectation of recall to a job, and alternate sources of income and funds. Survey data pertaining to maternity and parental benefits answer questions on the proportion of mothers of an infant who received maternity and parental benefits, the reason why some mothers do not receive benefits and about sharing parental benefits with their spouse. The survey also allows looking at the timing and circumstances related to the return to work, the income adequacy of households with young children and more.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.014

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisSame topicEarth Systems and Cosmic EvolutionFrench-language works237,207