MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969643767 · doi:10.5683/sp3/pthrs7

Labour Force Historical Review, 1999 [Canada] [B2020]

2015· dataset· en· W6969643767 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentCurrent Population SurveyDescriptive statisticsPopulationMarital statusOfficial statisticsDiscouraged workerSurvey data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a household survey carried out monthly by Statistics Canada. Since its inception in 1945, the objectives of the LFS have been to divide the working-age population into three mutually exclusive classifications - employed, unemployed, and not in the labour force - and to provide descriptive and explanatory data on each of these categories. Data from the survey provide information on major labour market trends such as shifts in employment across industrial sectors, hours worked, labour force participation and unemployment rates, employment including the self-employed, full and part-time employment, and unemployment. It publishes monthly standard labour market indicators such as the unemployment rate, the employment rate and the participation rate. The LFS is a major source of information on the personal characteristics of the working-age population, including age, sex, marital status, educational attainment, and family characteristics. Employment estimates include detailed breakdowns by demographic characteristics, industry and occupation, job tenure, and usual and actual hours worked. This dataset is designed to provide the user with historical information from the Labour Force Survey. The tables included are monthly and annual, with some dating back to 1976. Most tables are available by province as well as nationally. Demographic, industry, occupation and other indicators are presented in tables derived from the LFS data. The information generated by the survey has expanded considerably over the years with a major redesign of the survey content in 1976 and again in 1997, and provides a rich and detailed picture of the Canadian labour market. Some changes to the Labour Force Survey (LFS) were introduced which affect data back to 1987. There are three reasons for this revision: The revision enables the use of improved population benchmarks in the LFS estimation process. These improved benchmarks provide better information on the number of non-permanent residents. There are changes to the data for the public and private sectors from 1987 to 1999. In the past, the data on the public and private sectors for this period were based on an old definition of the public sector. The revised data better reflects the current public sector definition, and therefore result in a longer time series for analysis. The geographic coding of several small Census Agglomerations (CA) has been updated historically from 1996 urban centre boundaries to 2001 CA boundaries. This affects data from January 1987 to December 2004. It is important to note that the changes to almost all estimates are very minor, with the exception of the public sector series and some associated industries from 1987 to 1999. Rates of unemployment, employment and participation are essentially unchanged, as are all key labour market trends. The article titled Improvements in 2006 to the LFS (also under the LFS Documentation button) provides an overview of the effect of these changes on the estimates. The seasonally-adjusted tables have been revised back three years (beginning with January 2004) based on the latest seasonal output.

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)0.002
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.028
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.037

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207