Advisory Panel Pan-Atlantic Study of the Impact of Recent Changes to Employment Insurance Advisory Panel Final
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2013, Atlantic Premiers announced the creation of the Atlantic Premiers ’ Panel on Impacts of Changes to Employment Insurance to undertake a pan-Atlantic consultation and research initiative to detail the impact of recent changes make by the Federal Government to the Employment Insurance (EI) system. Although we heard a wide variety of inputs from stakeholders on all aspects of the EI system we did not include within our recommendations any comments outside of the mandate of this Panel. Throughout the past eleven (11) months we have completed the requirements for this initiative and are pleased to present to you our findings and recommendations. We have gathered input from a wide array of stakeholders, claimants, government representatives, and concerned citizens throughout Atlantic Canada. We conducted in-person sessions, a telephone survey, and reviewed written submissions in order to develop this report. We believe that we have captured within our recommendations the main effects of the changes to the EI program as experienced by Atlantic Canadians. One thing is abundantly clear- Atlantic Canadians have very deep concerns regarding the potential effects of the changes. Much of the fear stems from the issues surrounding the way that the changes were introduced (lack of communications, misunderstanding of the issues) rather than any actual experienced effects. Without detailed statistical analysis of the EI claimant data we were unable to provide a detailed data examination of actual effects. We propose that this type of analysis be conducted in the future by the provinces. We also heard support for the changes from groups that felt that the EI program had inefficiencies that needed to be addressed. However we did not receive substantiated reports of employers who were benefitting from the changes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.004 |
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".