MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518870168 · doi:10.3386/w10155

Do Dropouts Drop Out Too Soon? International Evidence From Changes in School-Leaving Laws

2003· report· en· W1518870168 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philip Oreopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2003
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrop outDrop (telecommunication)LawPolitical scienceDemographic economicsEconomicsEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies high school dropout behavior by estimating the long-run consequences to leaving school early.I measure these consequences using changes in minimum school leaving ages n often introduced to prevent dropping out n and compare results across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.Students compelled to stay in school experience substantial gains to lifetime wealth, health, and other labor market activities for all three countries, and these results hold up against a wide array of specification checks.I estimate dropping out one year later increases present value income by more than 10 times forgone earnings and more than 2 times the maximum lifetime annual wage.The one-year cost to attending high school would have to be extremely large to offset these gains under a model that views education as an investment.Other, sub-optimal, explanations for why dropouts forgo these benefits are considered.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.661
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.048 · 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

Citations62
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207