MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196642684 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2004.9669008

The Performance of the Labour Market in Guyana

2004· article· fr· W2196642684 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Gafar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityDualismLabour economicsEconomicsInformal sectorPublic sectorAgricultureDual economyEconomic sectorQuality (philosophy)Market economyEconomic growthEconomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the state of the labour market in Guyana. The paper shows that economic reforms led to robust economic growth in the 1990s, but the labour force participation rates and total employment fell during 1993–99. Reductions in public sector employment were largely responsible for the decline in total employment. The agricultural sector is the largest employer of labour, accounting for nearly 30% of total employment and 29% of GDP. Nearly 42% of the employed labour force ekes out an existence in the informal sector, and around 57% of the poor is engaged in low productivity informal sector type activities. This suggests that there is a lack of good-quality jobs and insufficient job opportunities in Guyana. Estimates of labour productivity show substantial disparities in productivity levels across various sectors of the economy, thereby providing evidence to support the theory of economic dualism and the existence of dual or segmented labour markets in Guyana. The evidence also shows that there exists a positive relationship between education attainment and employment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développementSame topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207