MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153911402 · doi:10.1186/s40173-015-0035-8

Wage returns to mid-career investments in job training through employer supported course enrollment: evidence for Canada

2015· article· en· W2153911402 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wen Ci, José Galdo, Marcel Voia, Christopher Worswick

Bibliographic record

VenueIZA Journal of Labor Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaSugar Research and Development CorporationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMatching (statistics)WageWage growthEconomicsLabour economicsDemographic economicsPropensity score matching

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using longitudinal data for Canada, we analyze the incidence and wage returns to employer supported course enrollment for men and women. Availability of confidential data, along with a relatively rich set of observable covariates, lead us to the estimation of difference-in-differences matching models of the effect of employer supported course enrolment on wages. The estimated average treatment effects on the treated range from 5.5 to 7.2 percent for men and 7.1 to 9.0 for women. While high-skilled workers show disproportionately higher rates of participation in employer-supported training, we observe no wage premiums for these types of workers. Statistically significant positive wage returns are found, on the other hand, for low-skilled workers. JEL codes:C14, I20, J24, J31, M53

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIZA Journal of Labor PolicySame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207