MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965599871 · doi:10.1111/rode.12615

Determinants of youth not in education, employment or training: Evidence from Sri Lanka

2019· article· en· W2965599871 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ashani Abayasekara, Neluka Gunasekara

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Development Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Grants CommissionUniversiteit van die VrystaatInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsSri lankaMultinomial logistic regressionDemographic economicsEconomicsEthnic groupTraining (meteorology)Survey data collectionLogistic regressionSocioeconomicsGeographyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The presence of a large proportion of youth neither in education, employment, or training (NEET) signals problems in a country’s education and labor market systems, and has wide‐ranging negative consequences, extending beyond the individual to the economy and society. Using Sri Lankan Labour Force Survey data for the year 2016 and binomial and multinomial logistic regression models, in this paper we provide the first estimates of NEET‐related risk factors in Sri Lanka. Key risk factors of becoming NEET include being female, being of ethnic and religious minorities, belonging to the older 20 to 24 age group, having very low or very high levels of education, being illiterate in English, belonging to a low‐income household or one headed by a male, having young children, and living in more remote areas. Our findings hold several important policy implications for reducing the NEET rate in Sri Lanka and engaging more youth in education and in the labor force.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Development EconomicsSame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207