MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017887093 · doi:10.1111/ecin.12363

REGIONAL AND SECTORAL EVIDENCE OF THE MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF LABOR REALLOCATION: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS

2016· article· en· W2017887093 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitrios Bakas, Theodore Panagiotidis, Gianluigi Pelloni

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Inquiry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsUnemploymentPanel dataEconometricsDispersion (optics)Relevance (law)Macroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article revisits the sectoral shifts hypothesis by examining unemployment fluctuations for 48 U.S. states over the period 1990:M01–2011:M12. We develop a panel approach that incorporates dynamics, parameter heterogeneity, aggregate factors, and cross‐sectional dependence (CSD). Our findings provide support for a positive and significant effect of the employment dispersion index on unemployment. This outcome is robust under alternative specifications and measures of employment dispersion. The empirical evidence corroborates the presence and relevance of CSD and heterogeneity among states. The results show that, once unobserved common factors and cross‐state heterogeneity are taken into account, labor reallocation has a significant effect on unemployment that is half the size of the estimate when cross‐sectional dependence is not taken into account. (JEL E24, E32, J21, R23, C23)

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)0.004
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic InquirySame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207