MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W18500272

Unemployment, Gender and Labor Force Participation in Spain: Future Trends in Labor Market

2014· article· en· W18500272 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emilio Congregado, Mónica Carmona, Antonio A. Golpe, André van Stel

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanian Journal of Economic Forecasting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentEconomicsRecessionQuarter (Canadian coin)Business cycleLabour economicsUnemployment rateDiscouraged workerPercentage pointDemographic economicsBeveridge curveMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

quarter of 2012, almost three percentage points higher than one year earlier and almost 12 percentage points higher than at the end of 2008. Although the exponential growth of Spanish unemployment is mainly caused by a lower demand for labor, there is also a second cause, viz. an increased supply of labor, reflected by higher participation rates. In this paper we investigate how participation rates are affected by business cycle fluctuations, while accounting for different labor market behaviour of men and women. Based on an analysis using Spanish quarterly data over the period 1976-2012, we find evidence for a linear discouraged worker effect for men (i.e., decreasing participation rates during recessions), implying that male participation rates will continue to show a weak but sustained decrease as long as unemployment keeps rising. On the contrary, we find a significant ‘added’ worker effect (i.e., increasing participation rates during recessions) for women, but only when unemployment rates are below a certain threshold. Since the Spanish unemployment rate just recently (in 2012) passed this threshold, our results suggest that the added worker effect for women no longer applies and that, accordingly, the recent increase in female participation rates now comes to an end.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanian Journal of Economic ForecastingSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207