Increasing Share of Agriculture in Employment in the Time of Crisis: Puzzle or Not?
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
In the first quarter of 2008, along with the beginning of the crisis, the employment share of agriculture in Turkey deviated from its long-run trend and started to rise. Both the timing and the direction of the change caused a public debate seeking an explanation of this phenomenon. Getting attention in the debate is the fact that labor productivity in agriculture has been declining since that quarter. How much of the increase in agricultural employment can be explained by the secular changes in its productivity? To answer this question, we use a multi-sector general equilibrium model in which employment share in agriculture is determined solely by the subsistence constraint and labor productivity in agriculture, where sectoral productivity growth rates are treated as exogenous. The model accounts for more than 90 percent of the decline in the agricultural employment share between 2000:Q2 and 2010:Q3. The model is also able to generate the increase in agricultural employment since 2008:Q1, although it slightly overpredicts the agricultural employment share. The model also predicts the sectoral allocations of labor in non-agricultural activities during the sample period. A detailed analysis of the driving forces of the growth in agricultural productivity is needed, since it lies at the heart of the secular changes in employment shares in Turkey.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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