Fields of Plenty, Fields of Lean: The Early Labour Market Outcomes of Canadian University Graduates by Discipline
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of an empirical analysis of the early career outcomes of recent Canadian Bachelor's level graduates by discipline based on three waves of the National Graduates Surveys, which comprise large, representative databases of individuals who successfully completed their programmes at Canadian universities in 1982, 1986, and 1990, with information gathered during interviews conducted two and five years after graduation for each group of graduates (1984-87, 1988-92, 1990-95). Many outcomes conform to expectations, typically reflecting the different orientations of the various disciplines with respect to direct career preparedness, with the professions and other applied disciplines generally characterised by lower unemployment rates, closer skill and qualification matches, higher earnings, and so on. On the other hand, while the "applied" fields also tend to perform well in terms of the more subjective measures regarding job satisfaction and the overall evaluation of the chosen programme, these outcomes also depart from what job market outcomes alone might have predicted (e.g., fine arts and humanities graduates are more satisfied than many others). Some implications of the findings are discussed and avenues for future research are suggested.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it