MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006856757 · doi:10.1086/708724

Sharp Bounds and Testability of a Roy Model of STEM Major Choices

2020· preprint· en· W3006856757 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Political Economy · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsPointwiseSelection (genetic algorithm)Constraint (computer-aided design)Monotone polygonEconometricsMathematicsMonotonic functionDistribution (mathematics)Representation (politics)Joint probability distributionMathematical economicsInstrumental variableEconomicsComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the empirical content of the Roy model, stripped down to sector-specific unobserved heterogeneity and self-selection on the basis of potential outcomes. We characterize sharp bounds on the joint distribution of potential outcomes and testable implications of the Roy model. We apply these bounds to derive a measure of departure from Roy self-selection, so as to identify prime targets for intervention. Special emphasis is put on the case of binary outcomes. We analyze a Roy model of college major choice in Canada and Germany and take a new look at the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.204 · 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