An examination of the prevalence and predictors of asset poverty in Canadian families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to UNICEF (2012) four in thirty (13%) children in Canada live in poverty. Aside from being a specific threat to social justice, childhood deprivation is associated with poor development outcomes, some of which may persist into adulthood. Asset poverty, while explored in other contexts and countries, has not been explored as much in Canada as income poverty has. There is good reason to suspect that assets have important effects on children independent of income, and a wide research gap exists in this area in Canada. This thesis explored the prevalence and predictors of asset poverty in Canadian families with children through use of two cross-sectional nationally representative datasets, the Survey of Financial Security 1999 and 2005. Results of bivariate and multivariate analyses of the data showed that while Canadian families with children had lower rates of net worth asset poverty than those without children, they had higher odds of asset poverty when socio-demographic variables are controlled for. Approximately 60% of Canadian families with children were found to be financial asset poor, and were nearly twice as likely as those without children to be asset poor. Although rates of asset poverty were higher in some provinces than others, the odds of being asset poor in different provinces were generally even. Social work is a discipline that is called to make real improvements in the well-being of vulnerable individuals, and measurement of economic deprivation is of particular importance to the effectiveness of our efforts. By exploring the likelihood of asset poverty in families with children, this study makes a significant contribution in opening the conversation in Canada on the importance of assets to child well-being.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".