MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955089087 · doi:10.1177/0143831x19856411

Critiquing the OECD’s Employment Protection Legislation Index for individual dismissals: The importance of procedural requirements

2019· article· en· W2955089087 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Harcourt, Gregor Gall, Arjun Sree Raman, Helen Lam, Richard Croucher

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic and Industrial Democracy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationEmployment protection legislationIndex (typography)UnemploymentEconomicsPrincipal (computer security)Scale (ratio)Empirical researchPublic economicsLabour economicsBusinessPolitical scienceLawEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key EU agencies have successfully urged member states to scale back employment protection legislation as a solution to unemployment. The economic arguments for this reform are mixed, with recent empirical evidence largely unsupportive. Critics have also raised doubts about the accuracy of the OECD’s Employment Protection Legislation Index, which is the principal method EU agencies use to target so-called high-protection regimes. This article supplements existing criticisms of the OECD index by arguing that it fails to account for procedural requirements in assessing the difficulties and costs of carrying out individual dismissals. Evidence from New Zealand, ostensibly a low-protection country, demonstrates procedural requirements can pose the main impediments to carrying out individual dismissals. This suggests the need for revision of the OECD Employment Protection Legislation Index or the use of other indices instead.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic and Industrial DemocracySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207