“Recycling”: The Economic Implications of Obtaining Additional Post‐secondary Credentials at Lower or Equivalent Levels*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore les revenus des diplômés des collèges communautaires et des programmes universitaires de premier cycle. Le premier but de cette étude est de déterminer si les programmes des collèges communautaires en formation technique et appliquée procurent à leurs finissants de meilleurs revenus que ceux des arts libéraux, soi‐disant « plus mous ». Le second but est d'examiner les répercussions économiques de L'obtention d'un nouveau titre scolaire de niveau postsecondaire qui n'a pas été conçu dans le but d'être une continuation du premier titre, une pratique connue sous le nom de « recyclage ». Des comparaisons par champ d'étude sont aussi étudiées. This paper explores the earnings of graduates of community college and university undergraduate programs of different fields of study. There are two goals of this study. The first goal is to determine whether technical and applied community college programs provide their graduates with better earnings outcomes than do the so‐called “softer” liberal arts programs. The second goal is to examine the economic implications of obtaining an additional post‐secondary credential that is not designed to be a continuation of the first credential, a practice known as “recycling.” Comparisons by field of study are also investigated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".