MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001120687 · doi:10.1177/0160017608325594

Assessing the Effectiveness of Human Capital Investments on the Regional Unemployment Rate in the United States: 1990 and 2000

2008· article· en· W2001120687 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Regional Science Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentEconomicsHuman capitalInvestment (military)Per capitaLabour economicsPopulationNet migration rateDemographic economicsEconomic growthPopulation growthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article evaluates the effect of human capital investment—for example, expenditures on education, training, and employment—on regional unemployment rates in the United States. State-level unemployment rates are estimated using the spatial lag fixed effects model with spatial correlation of regional unemployment rates for 1990 and 2000. The results show that unemployment rates can be decreased by a policy of state-level human capital investment. A $100 per capita human capital investment in a state is expected to decrease the unemployment rate by 0.63 percent. Human capital investment has a negative impact on a state's unemployment as long as the yearly average state net migration rate is greater than −1.6 percent. A maximum of 1.6 percent of a state's population can out-migrate on average in a year for human capital expenditures to be associated with a decrease in the state's unemployment rate. If a state's net migration rate is less than −1.6 percent of its population, human capital expenditures have a positive effect on unemployment.

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 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)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.216 · 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