MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549133767 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-46781-2_13

Millennials in Canada: Young Workers in a Challenging Labour Market

2016· book-chapter· en· W2549133767 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eddy S. Ng, Seán Lyons, Linda Schweitzer

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of GuelphDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderemploymentUnemploymentYouth unemploymentDebtLabour economicsEconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cohort of young workers born between 1980 and 1995 has been given a wide range of labels by various authors and commentators, including “Millennials” (Strauss and Howe 1991), “Generation Y” (Johnson and Johnson 2010),“Gen Me” (Twenge 2006), “Nexters” (Zemke et al. 2000), “the next great generation” (Howe and Strauss 2000), and the “nexus generation” (Barnard et al. 1998). In recent years, they have earned an unfortunate new moniker: “generation screwed” (Girod and Shapiro 2012). This epithet conveys an image of a generation facing an uncertain future with bleak prospects of quality permanent employment, rising levels of personal debt, and an inability to maintain the quality of life afforded by their parents (Carbone and Cahn 2014). The current narrative in the mass media and popular press suggests that despite high levels of education and technological skills, Millennials across the developed world are plagued by high levels of unemployment and underemployment (Foster 2012). If this characterization is correct, persistent high unemployment rates could create social and economic problems such as long-term (structural) unemployment, widespread low-quality jobs, and a loss of confidence among young workers (ILO 2013).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207