MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495500235

Formation of Heterogeneous Skills and Wage Growth

2009· preprint· en· W1495500235 on OpenAlexaff
Shintaro Yamaguchi

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWageCognitive skillTask (project management)Wage growthCognitionLabour economicsDreyfus model of skill acquisitionMotor skillPsychologyEconomicsDevelopmental psychologyManagementEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how primitive skills associated with occupations are formed and rewarded in the labor market over the careers of men. The objective task complexity measurement from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles enables a more direct look into the primitive skills of workers. I show that the optimal choice of task complexity is a linear function of unobserved skills, worker characteristics, and preference shocks, which implies that the observed task complexity is a noisy signal of underlying skills. Using career histories from the NLSY79, the growth of cognitive and motor skills as well as structural parameters are estimated by the Kalman filter. The results indicate that both cognitive and motor skills account for a considerable amount of cross-sectional wage variation. I also find that cognitive skills grow over careers and are the main source of wage growth; this pattern is particularly pronounced for the highly educated. In contrast, motor skills grow and contribute to wage growth substantially only for high school dropouts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207