MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060178052 · doi:10.1080/13504851.2012.676730

Education–job match among recent Canadian university graduates

2012· article· en· W2060178052 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brahim Boudarbat, Victor Chernoff

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)DisadvantagedGraduation (instrument)Human capitalInvestment (military)Demographic economicsHigher educationPsychologyImmigrationLabour economicsMedical educationSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growthMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses data from the 2005 Follow-up of Canadian Graduates – Class of 2000 – to look at the determinants of education–job match among university graduates. The question of education–job match is relevant given the substantial investment society puts into its postsecondary institutions and the role devoted to human capital in economic development. We find that 35.1% of graduates are in a job that is not closely related to their education 5 years after graduation. The education–job match strongly depends upon education characteristics, with fields that focus on providing specific skills for the job market (such as ‘Health sciences’ and ‘Education’) being associated with the highest likelihood of obtaining an education–job match. In addition, the level of education, good grades and time devoted to studying strongly affect the match. Employment characteristics also affect the match, but to a mixed extent. One of our main findings is that predetermined characteristics (age, gender and family background) do not significantly affect the match. However, immigrants are significantly disadvantaged even if they hold Canadian degrees.

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)0.003
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 score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Economics LettersSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207