Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we first analyze the determinants of training using data from the 2003 International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (IALSS). We find that education plays a key role in the receipt of all forms of training except in the case of employer-sponsored training. We also find substantial differences across demographic groups in the relationship between literacy skills and training. In the second part of the paper we merge the 1994 IALS to the 2003 IALSS and perform an analysis of the impact of the Quebec policy introduced in 1995 by which employers are required to devote at least 1% of the payroll to training activities. In the case of males we find no effect of the policy on the incidence of employer-sponsored training. On the other hand, Quebec females did experience a very large relative increase in training incidence between 1994 and 2003. However, the magnitude of the estimates is much too large to be plausibly caused by the policy given its modest scale. We show evidence of a significant relative increase in female employment rates in Quebec that could explain part -but probably not all-of the large increase in female employer-sponsored training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".