Targeting child poverty in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the federal government's program designed to address child poverty after the commitment made by the Canadian parliament, in 1989, to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Specifically, the Child Tax Benefit (CT-13), the targeted children's poverty program introduced by the federal government in 1993, is analysed in relation to whether it reduced, made no difference, or increased the level and depth of child poverty in Canada. To examine if there were significant correlational effects among the three years (1990, 1993, 1997) of data used in this study a Structural Equation Model was developed. Relationships of control (or modifying) variables such as total income, wages and salaries, and income after tax, were found to be appropriate predictors when dealing with child poverty. It was also found that each year could be treated/examined separately and that there was very little dependence between years. The results provide sufficient support to sustain that the effects of the program CT-13 on child poverty are negligible. The cutbacks to social assistance through claw backs and de-indexing and overall reduction on expenditures for social programs delivered through the welfare state had deleterious consequences for families and children during the time periods analysed in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".