MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916544406 · doi:10.1177/1045159518818407

Problem-Solving Skills of the U.S. Workforce and Preparedness for Job Automation

2019· article· en· W2916544406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Phyllis Cummins, Takashi Yamashita, Roberto J. Millar, Shalini Sahoo

Bibliographic record

VenueAdult Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Education Sciences
KeywordsWorkforcePreparednessLifelong learningPsychologyPolitical scienceMedical educationBusinessEconomic growthPedagogyMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automation and advanced technologies have increased the need for a better understanding of the skills necessary to have a globally competitive workforce. This study used data from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies to compare problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments among adults in South Korea, Germany, Singapore, Japan, Canada, Estonia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. Overall, the United States had the lowest scores among all countries, and in all countries scores declined with age. The United States had higher proportions of survey participants in the lowest skill category and lower proportions in the top-skill categories. The results of this study suggest changes in the U.S. educational and lifelong learning systems, and policies may be necessary to ensure all adults have the necessary skills in a competitive workforce.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdult LearningSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207