Work experience during higher education and post-graduation occupational outcomes: A comparative study on four European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between work experience acquired during higher education and post-graduation labour market outcomes in four European countries: Germany, Italy, Norway and Spain. A theoretical framework that shows in which institutional contexts work experience may be a ‘competitive advantage’ for young graduates is developed. In the empirical analysis, data from the Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Europe (CHEERS) and Research into Employment and Professional Flexibility (REFLEX) surveys are used to examine the effect of a typology of student employment (accounting for both length and coherence of work experience with the field of study attended) on several occupational outcomes 4–5 years after graduation. The empirical results show that, in Italy and especially in Spain, work activities during tertiary education are associated with better labour market positions after graduation: any type of work experience increases employability and reduces the risk of unemployment, and furthermore, previous work experience – especially when coherent with the field of study – decreases the probability of skill mismatch in future occupations. The effect of student employment, however, is smaller for most outcomes in Germany and negligible in Norway.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".