MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127190140

Literacy and employability

2007· article· en· W2127190140 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ross Finnie, Ronald Meng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)EmployabilityWindsorHomecomingReading (process)LiteracyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyMarketingManagementPedagogyEconomicsBusinessEngineeringLawHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ross Finnie is with the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University and the Business and Labour Market Analysis Division at Statistics Canada. He can be reached at 613-533-6000, ext. 74219. Ronald Meng is with the Department of Economics at the University of Windsor. He can be reached at 519-253-4232, ext. 2371. Both authors can be reached at perspectives@statcan.ca. The research paper The Importance of Functional Literacy: Reading and Math Skills and Labour Market Outcomes of High School Drop-outs from which this article is adapted is available on the Statistics Canada Web site at http://www.statcan.ca/english/ research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2006275.pdf. Since the early 1990s, the technology-driven ‘knowledge-based’ economy has captured the attention and affected the lives of virtually all Canadians. This phenomenon has been of particular interest to researchers and policy makers, not to mention business owners, long-time workers, and students permanently entering the job market following graduation or, more troubling, after dropping out of high school. One concern is how those lacking the technical skills, experience and necessary education—beginning with the three Rs—may be left behind in dead-end jobs as their peers pursue more dependable and lucrative career paths.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.397 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207