MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analyzing Job Mobility with Job Turnover Intentions: An International Comparative Study

2004· article· en· W2275871252 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alfonso Sousa‐Poza, Fred Henneberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Issues · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoverLabour economicsDemographic economicsEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzed job-turnover intentions in twenty-five countries with data from the 1997 International Social Survey Program. Results show that high turnover intentions, measured as the proportion of employed individuals that report a very likely change of job in the next 12 months, can be observed in Canada, 17.0 percent, the U.S., 14.3 percent, and Great Britain, 14.3 percent. Low turnover intentions are encountered in Japan, 1.8 percent, Spain, 3.0 percent, and several Eastern European countries. The determinants of turnover intentions are, in a number of cases, the same as those observed in many studies on actual turnovers. Determinants of turnover intentions do vary substantially among countries. However, union membership, public-sector employment, job satisfaction, job security, and firm pride are significant in most countries. The high turnover intentions observed in Great Britain, France, and, to a lesser extent, Canada can be explained by the subjective measures considered in this study. Especially Great Britain and France have very low rankings of job satisfaction, job security, advancement opportunities, and firm pride. Despite having the same turnover intentions, Great Britain and the United States differ substantially with regard to the subjective determinants. Whereas the high turnover intentions in Great Britain can be explained by the relatively poor perceived job satisfaction, job security, and firm pride, high turnover intentions in the United States coexist with relatively high levels of job satisfaction, job security, advancement opportunities, firm pride, and, most notably, good perceived labor market opportunities.

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)0.005
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations311
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic IssuesSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207