MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105849119 · doi:10.12775/oec.2014.020

Application of the Logit Model to the Analysis of Economic Activity Factors of the Disabled

2014· article· en· W2105849119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominik Śliwicki, Marek Ręklewski

Bibliographic record

VenueOeconomia Copernicana · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogitQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationLogistic regressionWorking populationWork (physics)VariablesEconometricsEconomicsSet (abstract data type)Demographic economicsActuarial sciencePsychologyStatisticsMathematicsDemographyComputer scienceEngineeringSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to identify factors affecting the classification as a working group of economically active people with disabilities. According to the Labour Force Survey methodology, working population is defined as labor resources, labor supply and labor force, which includes all people of working-age 15 and older, considered as employed or unemployed. Community of people with disabilities is extracted from the general population aged 15 and more, on the basis of law. People with disabilities include those aged 16 and over who have been awarded a judgment about the degree of disability or inability to work (CSO 2011).In the analyses of the labor market models with qualitative variables, which include logit models, are very often used. For the purpose of the study it was assumed that these models will describe the probability of a person with a disability to qualify for the category of employed. The basis for estimating probability models were individual data obtained under representative Labour Force Survey in the fourth quarter of 2010. A set of explanatory variables contains 54 binary variables.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOeconomia CopernicanaSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207