MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021615986 · doi:10.1093/cje/ben034

Why do women have longer durations of unemployment than men in post-restructuring urban China?

2008· article· en· W2021615986 on OpenAlexaff
Fenglian Du, Xiao‐yuan Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge Journal of Economics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringEntitlement (fair division)EarningsChinaUnemploymentEconomicsLabour economicsDemographic economicsEconomic restructuringSurvey data collectionEconomic growthPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides the first systematic analysis of the reasons why women endure longer unemployment durations than men in post-restructuring urban China. This analysis is based upon data obtained from a national representative household survey. Rejecting the view that women are less earnest than men in their desire for re-employment, this analysis shows that women's job search efforts are handicapped by a lack of access to social networks, unequal entitlement to social re-employment services, higher earnings losses from job separations for women, and unfair treatment of women with respect to mandatory retirement.

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)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations83
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge Journal of EconomicsSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207