MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027986980 · doi:10.5892/ruvrd.v17i2.5101

THE VALUE OF HIGH SCHOOL: THE IMPACT OF SCHOOLING ON INCOME AND LABOR MARKET INSERTION

2020· article· en· W3027986980 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leda Grasiele Oliveira, P. Ramos, Lincoln Frias

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista da Universidade Vale do Rio Verde · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRural Development and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusSecondary educationDescriptive statisticsEducational attainmentDemographic economicsRegression analysisQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsSample (material)Value (mathematics)PsychologyLabour economicsSociologyDemographyMathematics educationEconomic growthGeographyStatisticsMathematicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is some consensus that school education is central for the socioeconomic development of a country. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effect of secondary education on labor market insertion, analyzing the income and the different types of occupation of individuals with secondary education and those with only elementary education. In addition to a descriptive analysis, the paper employs multiple regression to understand the relationship between the level of education and the average income, evaluating the effect of secondary education using other variables as controls (e.g., such as sex and age). The data comes from the Continuous Household National Sample Survey (Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua - PNADC), second quarter of 2017, and the analysis was done in the Python programming language. Individuals with secondary education tend to have higher incomes than those with only elementary education (the additional amount varying between R$206 and R$391 according to different models). In addition, the effect of secondary education varies by age and sex, with women tending to have lower incomes than men.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista da Universidade Vale do Rio VerdeSame topicRural Development and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207