MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958365183 · doi:10.1177/1024258919862491

Post-crisis labour market outcomes in worlds of welfare and varieties of capitalism

2019· article· en· W2958365183 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Ferdosi

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfer European Review of Labour and Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentCapitalismEconomicsWelfareInequalityWelfare stateDemographic economicsEconomic inequalityEuropean unionWork (physics)Labour economicsDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomic policyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article tests divergent theories of welfare development and varieties of capitalism by comparing the socio-economic outcomes of 16 developed countries before and after the recent crisis. Similarities and differences are assessed using six indicators, namely inequality, low pay, union density, unemployment, involuntary part-time work and job strain. The findings show substantial variation in country group averages for indicators such as inequality, low pay, union density and involuntary part-time work. Different welfare production regimes, however, were not always distinguishable in terms of their impact on the overall direction of change, as many countries were worse off after the crisis, or the degree of change from one year to the next, as the greatest negative percentage changes were reported for the least expected group of countries. In general, the findings indicate that in some areas of social and economic life, many countries have not yet returned to pre-crisis levels.

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)0.000
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 score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfer European Review of Labour and ResearchSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207