MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038511511 · doi:10.1177/0027950110364093

A Comparison of Labour Market Responses to the Global Downturn

2010· article· en· W2038511511 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dawn Holland, Simon Kirby, Rachel Whitworth

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Institute Economic Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicUnemployment and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentEconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Rule of thumbUnemployment rateRecessionLabour economicsPercentage pointFull employmentDemographic economicsMacroeconomicsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global economic downturn has led to a crisis in labour markets, with an estimated 15.2 million job losses across the OECD economies, equivalent to a rise in the OECD unemployment rate from 5.5 to 8.9 per cent. Initially, the rise in unemployment appeared lower than expected. In Holland, Kirby and Whitworth (2009) we demonstrated a simple rule of thumb between output growth and the unemployment rate in the OECD as a whole, based on Okun's approach. Using a dataset that spans the period 1988–2008, regression analysis suggests that on average a 1 per cent decline in output is associated with a rise of 0.6 percentage points in the unemployment rate across the OECD economies. Between the first quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, output in the OECD economies declined by 4.8 per cent. The unemployment rate rose by 1.9 points over this period, as compared to 2.9 per cent given by the rule of thumb. However, the labour market tends to lag production. While most of the major economies started to grow again in the second or third quarters of 2009, OECD unemployment continued to rise into the final quarter of the year, with a cumulative increase in the OECD unemployment rate of 3.4 percentage points — even higher than that suggested by our rule of thumb.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Institute Economic ReviewSame topicUnemployment and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207