Labour Force Survey, July 2025 [Canada]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LFS data are used to produce the well-known unemployment rate as well as other standard labour market indicators such as the employment rate and the participation rate. The LFS also provides employment estimates by industry, occupation, public and private sector, hours worked and much more, all cross-classifiable by a variety of demographic characteristics. Estimates are produced for Canada, the provinces, the territories and a large number of sub-provincial regions. For employees, data on wage rates, union status, job permanency and establishment size are also produced. These data are used by different levels of government for evaluation and planning of employment programs in Canada. Regional unemployment rates are used by Employment and Social Development Canada to determine eligibility, level and duration of insurance benefits for persons living within a particular employment insurance region. The data are also used by labour market analysts, economists, consultants, planners, forecasters and academics in both the private and public sector. Statistical activity Together, four statistical programs tell a more complete story of current labour market events. These programs are: the Labour Force Survey (LFS), the Survey of Employment, Payrolls and Hours (SEPH), Employment Insurance Statistics (EIS), and the Job Vacancy and Wage Survey (JVWS). Every month, the LFS provides timely data on the labour market, including the unemployment rate and demographic analysis. Later on, the SEPH report shows greater detail on non-farm industry employment and earnings and the JVWS supplies preliminary indicators on job vacancies. EIS provides substantial detail on Employment Insurance benefits by geography, socio-demographics and former occupation. Every quarter, the JVWS provides detailed information on job vacancies by occupation and economic region.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.028 |
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".