A Comparison of the Labour Market Outcomes of Postsecondary Graduates of Various Levels and Fields over a Four-Cohort Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolving "knowledge-based" economy is widely believed to affect the labour market outcomes of highly educated workers.However, there are conflicting arguments regarding the needs of the new economy, and there is little evidence available in the research literature to determine whether the labour market outcomes of various postsecondary graduates have changed among graduates of recent cohorts.Drawing on the 1982, 1986, 1990, and 1995 National Graduates Surveys, this paper builds on previous research by comparing the earnings and employment outcomes of graduates of various levels of postsecondary schooling (i.e.trades, college, and university) and fields of study over a 13-year period.The analyses suggest that the labour market experiences of postsecondary graduates of the various programs have remained relatively stable over the period investigated.Résumé: On croit généralement que les changements amenés par l'économie du savoir modifie le marché de l'emploi des travailleurs hautement qualifiés.Cependant, les exigences de la nouvelle économie font l'objet de débats et la littérature sur le sujet ne fourni pas de réponse définitive à la question de savoir si les opportunités d'emploi des détenteurs d'un diplôme post-secondaire ont réellement changé au sein des récentes cohortes.Basé sur les Enquêtes nationales des diplômés de cohortes 1982, 1986, 1990 et 1995, cet article compare les perspectives d'emploi et de revenu des gradués de différents niveaux post-secondaire (collèges et universités) et formations.L'analyse suggère que ces perspectives ont évolué en parallèle au cours de la période investiguée.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".