MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969143167 · doi:10.1111/ecin.12829

THE U.S. LABOR INCOME SHARE AND AUTOMATION SHOCKS

2019· article· en· W2969143167 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Inquiry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversity of California, Irvine
KeywordsEconomicsIndexationWage shareInvestment (military)WageMonetary economicsLabour economicsMonetary policyMacroeconomicsEconometricsEfficiency wage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The causes and consequences of the 1964–2016 swings in the U.S. labor income share/labor share (LS) are parsed through the lens of a structural model estimated on aggregate and LS series jointly. Where conventional models fall short, the present model yields a counter‐cyclical LS unconditionally and in response to demand and monetary policy shocks, as well as a small wage pro‐cyclicality, via moderate wage indexation. Shifts in automation, workers' market power, investment efficiency, and the relative price of investment account for 54%, 24%, 6%, and 4% of LS fluctuations, respectively. Automation shocks explain the lion's share of the post‐2007 cyclical LS tumble and 11% of output cycles, and generate a distinctive counter‐cyclical labor response. ( JEL E32, E25, E52)

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.012

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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