MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762411413 · doi:10.5539/hes.v7n2p192

Tying Up the Loose Ends: The Determinants of Active Labour Market Policy in the Western Countries 1985-2013

2017· article· en· W2762411413 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ari-Matti Näätänen

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTyingEconomicsRivalryGovernment (linguistics)International economicsPopulation ageingDemographic economicsPopulationLabour economicsDevelopment economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge on the determinants of Active Labour Market Policy (ALMP) spending accumulated during the 2000s. Despite these advances, the current research lacks a systematic approach to the relevant determinants. This article fills the research gaps by analysing simultaneously the 14 most frequently used determinants for the first time. In addition to these variables, this study introduces a new factor, namely the impact of economic crises. Through the analysis of the longest data period yet investigated of 20 Western countries and a comparison of methodological alternatives, this study both challenges and reinforces previous findings, as well as produces new ones. For example, it is the first investigation to reveal the positive effect of government indebtedness and economic crises on ALMP expenditure. However, the rivalry between the “usual suspects” continues, as the negative effects of budget deficits, foreign trade, and population ageing, and the positive effects of trade union density and GDP growth, were rediscovered in this analysis.

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)0.002
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.367 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207