Systems of Educational Specialization and Labor Market Outcomes in Norway, Australia, and The Netherlands
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To account for differences between systems of education in highly educated societies, I argue that the impact of academic discipline (field of study) on labor market outcomes should be central. Three modifications of earlier typologies are needed to account for cross-national differences in the transparency of skills provided by educational specialization. We should observe: (1) the system of tertiary vocational programs; (2) whether a system has a bachelor’s-master’s structure; and (3) whether students choose minor and major subjects in college. Our analysis of Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands shows that these modifications seem useful. In the Netherlands, the impact of fields of study on wages and occupational status is much higher than in the other countries. The relatively high value of Australian qualifications compared to the Norwegian may be explained by the welfare state regulations of both countries, but this explanation is a tentative one. In Australia, eligibility to social benefits depends much more on previous work experience than in Norway, making fields of study a better indicator of labor market commitment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it