The Output Implications of Higher Labour Force Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the output implications of a significant rise in Australian labour force participation over the next forty years. Using the projections in the Commonwealth Government’s 2002-03 Intergenerational Report as a benchmark, it generates alternative projections assuming that, for each age-and-gender cohort, Australian participation rates rise gradually over (roughly) the next twenty years to reach the 80th percentile of the distribution of current participation rates across the OECD. Over the following twenty years, it assumes that Australian participation rates remain at these higher values. These alternative projections, if they were realised, would imply gradually rising aggregate labour force participation in Australia for most of the next twenty years, rather than gradually falling participation, as projected in the Intergenerational Report. Output in twenty years time would be about 9 per cent higher than that projected in the Intergenerational Report, and would remain about 9 per cent higher for the following twenty years. About one-third of the rise in output in these alternative projections would be accounted for by higher participation by 45-64 year old males, and between one-sixth and one-quarter by higher participation by people aged 65 and over. Some of the rise in participation rates in the alternative projections could occur as a consequence of recent rises in educational attainment flowing through to older age groups over time. Much of the rise, were it to occur, would need to come about as a consequence of changes in policy and in community attitudes, particularly to older workers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".