MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990179805

Are Canadian jobs more or less skilled than American jobs

2018· article· en· W2990179805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marc Frenette

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumeracyLiteracyReading (process)Reading comprehensionDemographic economicsPsychologyMathematics educationPolitical scienceEconomicsPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides a first look at the skill level requirements of jobs held by Canadian and American workers. In total, the study examines 35 different skills including STEM skills and skills in several complementary areas. Focusing on the skill level requirements of jobs (as opposed to those for workers) is important given that workers’ skills are not guaranteed to be used in their job. The reasons for this include capital investments, technological changes (which may complement or substitute the skills of workers), shifting product demand and the quality of the match between employer demands and workers’ skills. This study compares the level of job skills in Canada and the United States by combining occupational data on job skill levels from the Occupational Information Network with worker-level data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical Studies Branch Research Paper SeriesSame topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207