MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766705997 · doi:10.5755/j01.ppaa.16.3.19345

Migration of Highly Qualified Workers and Policies to Ensure Labour Market Sustainability in the European Union in 2013-2014

2017· article· en· W2766705997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Janavičiūtė, Audronė Telešienė, Jurgita Barynienė

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Policy And Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionSustainabilityBusinessLabour economicsEconomicsEconomic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

European Union is facing challenges of ageing societies and changes in structure of economy, thus labour shortages turn into an urgent issue that ultimately affects labour market sustainability. In its attempt to recruit highly qualified workers EU has strong international competitors, e.g. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and pursues a variety of initiatives at national level of the Member States and at the EU level in general. This article aims at assessing the EU policies related to migration of highly qualified workers. Statistical data analysis has revealed that labour mobility is increasing in EU. Thus the EU Mobility directive could be evaluated as bringing benefits, yet with a room for improvement, because highly qualified workers still make up just a small part in all the mobile citizens’ population. National initiatives are more effective in fostering the migration of highly qualified workers, but this has the threat of unequal benefits in different EU regions; the effectiveness of EU Blue Card initiative is weak but with a high potential, thus it needs further improvements in its issuing policies. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.16.3.19345 An erratum to this article is available at: http://vpa.ktu.lt/index.php/PPA/article/view/24731

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Policy And AdministrationSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207