MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332030767 · doi:10.1111/1759-3441.12134

Dissatisfaction with Working Time and Workers' Training Opportunities. Evidence from Matched Employer–Employee Data

2016· article· en· W2332030767 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Elisabetta Magnani

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Papers A journal of applied economics and policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRestructuringAppealTraining (meteorology)Test (biology)Work (physics)Demographic economicsLabour economicsBusinessDifferential (mechanical device)EconomicsPolitical scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training opportunities are unevenly distributed across workers. I use two highly‐comparable matched employer–employee surveys collected in the most intense phase of economic restructuring in Australia and Canada to test the hypothesis that a worker's desire to work less hours may reduce his/her training opportunities. I find robust evidence of a negative correlation between the desire to work less intensively and training opportunities. Institutional differences in the retirement funding system, and the differential appeal of outside options in Australia and Canada may contribute to explain these results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.102 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic Papers A journal of applied economics and policySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207