MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041748246

Labor Supply Decisions of Disabled Male Workers

2011· article· en· W2041748246 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harry Krashinsky, Michele Campolieti, Morley Gunderson

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsIncentiveWageWork (physics)Survey of Income and Program ParticipationCompensation (psychology)EconomicsSurvey data collectionLabour economicsDemographic economicsWork hoursHourly wageBusinessWorking hoursPsychologyFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use unique survey data, collected by the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario, to estimate the labor supply response of disabled male workers to benefit payouts and their post-injury wage. Our data enable us to fill gaps in the existing literature by estimating the hours as well as return-to-work response, for younger as well as older workers, and based on objective rather than subjective self-reporting of disability status. Our results suggest a strong positive incentive effect from higher wages, and that lump-sum benefit payouts that are not reduced if earnings increased generally do not have adverse incentives on the return to work and hours decision, except for an income effect over the longer life cycle of younger men. We also discuss the policy implications of our estimates.

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)0.002
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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207