MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906950200 · doi:10.1142/s021759081550085x

UNEMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

2015· article· en· W1906950200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fumitaka Furuoka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Singapore Economic Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicUnemployment and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentUnit rootUnit root testChinaEconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Unemployment rateDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsAsia pacificCointegrationGeographyEconomyEconomic growthEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study empirically examined unemployment dynamics in 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, namely, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand. It used quarterly data on the unemployment rates from the first quarter of 1980 to the first quarter of 2013. This paper employed three different econometric methods, including the recently-developed powerful unit root test with structural break (Lee and Strazicich, 2003, 2004) and the nonlinear unit root test (Enders and Lee, 2012). The findings indicated that the unemployment rates in five countries of the region, namely, China, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand, had highly dynamic labor markets in which higher-than-normal unemployment rates would revert to the normal level. The other seven Asia-Pacific countries had less dynamic labor markets. The findings of this study have some important policy implications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Singapore Economic ReviewSame topicUnemployment and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207