Löhne und Beschäftigung: Was wissen wir mehr als vor 25 Jahren? (Wages and employment * what more do we know than 25 years ago?)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This article, which serves as the introduction to the special issue focusing on 'wages and employment', deals with the key developments of the past 25 years in this area of research. First, the latest insights and findings of macro- and microeconomic theory as well as of empirical knowledge on the explanation and quantification of the relationship between wage level, wage structure and employment as well as of employment structure are the centre of attention, with the relevant progress in econometry also being acknowledged. Then, the importance of wage rigidities is dealt with, which are significant both from a macro- and a microeconomic point of view, and which have been at the centre of scientific and economic-policy discussions particularly in recent years. Finally, wage-policy conclusions are examined briefly. What becomes obvious is that a negative relationship between wages and employment can be detected far more clearly nowadays than a quarter of a century ago. This is equally true on the basis of theoretical and empirical analysis with a micro- and macroeconomic background, even if, when based on disequilibrium models, for the latter no positive employment effects due to reductions in real wages can be expected in times of recession." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it