L’offre de travail dans le modèle CANDIDE : un commentaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is a brief critical evaluation of the treatment of the "supply of labour" in the CANDIDE model. The authors note that the "supply of labour block" does not occur to have retained much of the effort of the CANDIDE developing team. With regards to the specification of the equation of supply of labour, no attempts have been made to integrate new developments in labour economics (a better treatment of the secondary workers supply of labour, a Fisherian utility maximising approach). We note certain econometric difficulties which have not been overcome: The limited dependant variable problem, the lag structure problem… Finally, though it is encouraging to see attempts in macro-economic models to integrate explicitly a labour demand and supply block with a certain disagregation, important economic problems in the labour market can be dealt only with much more flexible and disagregated models than CANDIDE.
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 | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".