MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078182602 · doi:10.4018/jhcitp.2011010104

The Determinants of Information Technology Wages

2011· article· en· W2078182602 on OpenAlex
Jing Quan, Ronald Dattero, Stuart D. Galup, Kewal Dhariwal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryHuman capitalMarital statusBinomial regressionCertificationCompensation (psychology)Logistic regressionHuman capital theoryEconomicsDemographic economicsWork experienceWork (physics)Labour economicsBusinessEconometricsPsychologyManagementStatisticsSocial psychologyEngineeringSociologyMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anchoring this work to the classical human capital theory, the authors examine the effects of various human capital factors on IT professional compensation. Dividing IT salary into LOW (<$75,000) and HIGH (>=$75,000) ranges and using binomial logistic regression analysis, this paper estimates the effects of IT experience, education, IT degrees, IT certifications, and managerial positions on the probabilities of earning low wages in comparison to high wages, while controlling for industry type, organization size and location, gender, and marital status. Results indicate that the most important factors associated with high salaries are managerial positions, IT experience, education, and organization size. Practical advice is given on how IT professionals can employ these results to increase their compensation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · 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