Low fertility Lite in Canada: The Nordic Model in Quebec and the U.S. Model in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the factors that are responsible for low fertility, the risks experienced by young people are particularly relevant. In that context, it is noteworthy that fertility is rising most in Alberta and Quebec, that is in provinces where young families have had the security of either good job opportunities or supportive social policy.\nThe fertility trend in Canada has seen a low point of 1.51 in 2002, rising to a total fertility rate of 1.59 in 2006. The trends and differences are placed in the context of family and work questions, including the division of paid and unpaid work by gender. Actual and intended fertility vary especially by marital status and family structure, with lower fertility in situations of less stability. Given the concurrent models of family and work, fertility varies less by women’s work status. We summarize the changing policy context, proposing that social policy has become more supportive of families with young children, especially in Quebec but also in the rest of Canada.\nThe further policy support for families needs to pay attention to the heterogeneity in the population, and thus to include subsidizing the direct costs of children, along with parental leave and child care. Family formation will also be enhanced through approaches that reduce the risks experienced by young people, and thus the importance of employment security, job satisfaction and affordable housing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".