Comparing Formal Unemployment Compensation Systems in 15<scp>OECD C</scp>ountries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study contributes to the welfare regime literature by analyzing unemployment compensation programmes – unemployment insurance ( UI )/assistance ( UA ) programmes and redundancy pay schemes – of welfare state/occupational welfare regimes. It covers 15 countries of the O rganisation for E conomic C o‐operation and D evelopment ( OECD ) selected from S outhern E uropean, L iberal, C ontinental‐corporatist and S ocial D emocratic country clusters. In contrast to the common argument that S outhern E uropean countries have underdeveloped formal unemployment compensation systems, this study argues that they (especially in S pain, P ortugal, and to some extent Italy) are comparable in strength to those in C ontinental‐corporatist countries if occupational welfare programmes – notably redundancy pay – are considered alongside welfare state programmes for unemployment protection. The study also outlines the characteristics of redundancy pay schemes in the four country clusters and shows how different redundancy pay schemes are linked to UI / UA schemes in these clusters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".