MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2241896505

Labour Cost Adjustment during the Crisis: Firm-level Evidence

2015· article· en· W2241896505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzanne Linehan, Reamonn Lydon, John Scally

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Bulletin Articles · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrishLabour economicsWageMargin (machine learning)EconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Shock (circulatory)Flexibility (engineering)Cost cuttingReal wagesDemographic economicsOperations management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a new firm-level dataset, based on the results from a survey on the wage-setting practices of Irish firms in the second half of 2014. These survey results represent a useful resource for policy makers, allowing for firm-level analysis of the approach to the adjustment of labour demand and wages in the face of a large negative shock. A number of findings are worth highlighting in relation to these results: in terms of the labour cost cutting approach, firms relied upon both reductions in the quantity (employment and hours) and the price of labour (wages); employee numbers was the most widely used margin of adjustment, followed by wage cuts and hours. While the majority of Irish firms opted to freeze base wages, in the region of 60 per cent, there is strong evidence of downward wage flexibility, with almost one quarter of firms surveyed cutting wages. A comparison with previous findings in relation to Ireland and other euro area countries points to a dramatic increase in the incidence of wage freezes and wage cuts amongst Irish firms during the 2008-2013 period.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Bulletin ArticlesSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207