Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper surveys earnings differences for workers who followed different types of secondary and tertiary education. [The authors] perform two comparisons: (a) for those whose schooling attainment does not surpass high school, [the authors] compare those who followed the technical path or specialty vis-a-vis those who followed a humanistic or general one; and (b) for those whose schooling attainment reached the tertiary level, [the authors] compare those who attended a (three years or more) vocational program vis-a-vis those who pursued a university degree. The comparisons are performed following a matching approach as in Nopo (2008) and represent 13 Latin American countries for the period comprised between 1995 and 2009. The results indicate that: (a) at the secondary level, workers who followed the technical path earn between five per cent and 10 per cent more than their peers who followed the humanistic path, the gaps are homogeneous along the earnings distribution and this did not change much during the period of analysis; and (b) at the tertiary level, workers who attended college earn between 40 per cent and 50 per cent more than their peers who attended technical studies, and this gap is increasing along the earnings distribution (that is, there are higher earning gaps for higher earnings workers) and increased between 10 and 20 percentage points during the period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".