MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917321528

The South African labour market, 1995-2013

2015· preprint· en· W2917321528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lyle Festus, Atoko Kasongo, Mariana Moses, Derek Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentQuarter (Canadian coin)Work (physics)Labour economicsDemographic economicsEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Unemployment rateCapeGeographyEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the changes in the South African labour market in the post-apartheid period in 1995-2013 by updating the work by Oosthuizen (2006) and Yu (2008). The three main data sources used are the October Household Survey of 1995, the Labour Force Survey of September 2004 and the Quarterly Labour Force Survey of 2013 Quarter 4. It was found that while unemployment has risen over the period, employment has also increased. Nonetheless, the extent of employment increase was not rapid enough to absorb all net entrants in to the labour force, resulting in increasing unemployment, or an employment absorption rate of below 100 per cent. Unemployment continues to be concentrated in specific demographically and geographically defined groups, most notably blacks, the poorly educated and the youngsters residing in Gauteng. Unemployment is a chronic problem for the youth in particular, as nearly three quarters of them never worked before. Finally, the employment absorption rate was the highest in some less developed provinces like Northern Cape, Mpumalanga and Limpopo, thereby suggesting the possible success of the government’s efforts to promote the development in the poorer provinces.

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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207