Wen-Hao Chen* Family and Labour Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares income mobility in Canada and three similar industrialized countries—the United States, Britain and Germany—during the 1990s and early 2000s, using recently developed Cross-National Equivalent Files (CNEF). The comparative perspective of cross-national experiences provides a chance to understand relative degree of equality and opportunity in Canada, and also helps identify the differences in the sources and structure of income mobility. Using a broad set of mobility indices, the results show that Canada is not so different from other countries in various measures when mobility over a longer-time period is observed. However, the results also find that income movements in Canada over this period are largely associated with transitory rather than permanent changes, suggesting a higher long-term inequality. Moreover, the analysis of income variability by sources discovers that government transfer system contributes to buffering household income changes due to other volatile components, and such stabilizing effects are more pronounced in Canada than in other countries. Also, the exploration of within-group mobility suggests that a large proportion of mobility is governed by unobserved heterogeneities, and the proportion is much higher in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".