MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1616586911 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2015.1042009

Female Labor Force Participation and Dependency Ratios in Border States

2015· article· en· W1616586911 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miguel A. Vicens-Feliberty, F. Ruiz Reyes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDependency ratioDependency (UML)EconomicsFertilityDemographic economicsInequalityPopulationLabour economicsTotal fertility rateDemographySociologyFamily planningResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have identified some of the factors affecting female labor force participation (FLFP) as: economic dependency, income inequality, family structure, and fertility, among others. This paper will study the impact of dependency ratios on female labor force participation in the US Border States with Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). We use dependency ratios to measure the role of females’ as economic producers and active members of the labor force. The most important finding was that changes in population age structure, affects the female labor force participation rate in the Border States. By following Kelley's approach on dependency ratios, we found that children have a negative effect on the female labor force participation rate. The constant care and attention required by children seems to impede females’ participation in the labor force. However, the elderly population was found to have a positive effect on female labor force participation rate, which could suggest that the elder's involvement in the household promotes female economic activity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207