MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2553656261 · doi:10.1057/9781137475350_18

The Share of Wages in Income in Australia

2016· book-chapter· en· W2553656261 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. W. Nevile

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsReal wagesProductivityLabour economicsCommissionNational Income and Product AccountsQuarter (Canadian coin)CommonwealthProduct (mathematics)WageMeasures of national income and outputMacroeconomicsFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years many Australian economists have advocated a policy of gearing wages to productivity or output per man. To give but one example, Downing and Isaac recommend that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission “anticipate a steady annual increase in productivity of, say, something over 2 per cent and, on the basis of this, … grant automatically every quarter a cumulative increase in all award wages of ½ per cent.” 1 Assuming constant export and import prices, and constant indirect tax rates, gearing wages to productivity will lead to stable prices if, and only if, profits are proportional to wages, i.e. only if wages are a constant proportion of gross national product at factor cost. Consequently, there has been considerable discussion, before the Commission and elsewhere, about whether or not Australian social accounts show wages as a constant proportion of gross national product. Almost all of this discussion has been based on figures for the proportions of wages and profits in the economy as a whole, or in the whole economy excluding certain industries. Moreover, profits have been defined as the gross operating surpluses of both incorporated and unincorporated enterprises. For example, Hawke, in arguing before the Commission that there had been a drift to profits, pointed out that in total in all industries excluding primary production, mining and quarrying, the share of wages fell from 65 per cent in 1953/54 to 61 per cent in 1963/64. 2 Those who believe that there has not been a drift to profits also look at aggregate figures, though excluding more industries than Hawke does. Hall, in the Australian Financial Review, after arguing that certain industries should be excluded, considered the rest of the economy and found that over the same period “the share of wages in domestic product … did not fall but rose slightly from 64.8 per cent to 65.1 per cent”. 3 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks→Same topicEducation Systems and Policy→French-language works237,207→