Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 1 uses individual-level data to estimate the labor market consequences of environmental policies. The focus on workers rather than industries as the unit of analysis allows me to investigate previously unobserved outcomes, such as (i) unemployment rates, labor force participation rates, and the natures of layoffs and new hires and (ii) the distributional effects of these policies, both of which are critical to understanding costs and their distributions associated with environmental policies. Exploiting the introduction of a revenue-neutral carbon tax in British Columbia (BC), I find that environmental taxes, though revenue-neutral, tax away jobs. Chapter 2 exploits BC's carbon tax to study how jobs and wages are cut. It uncovers the dynamics of unemployment and wage effects. While the unemployment effect arrives without lags but decays quickly, the wage effect comes with lags but grows gradually. Chapter 2 provides strong evidence to conclude that a complete understanding of unemployment and wage effects requires an explanation of employment flows---the inflow and outflow of employment. Chapter 2 bridges between the literature and the public---it explains why prior studies may find the labor market effects of environmental policies weak and explains why the public is so concerned with potential job and wage losses created by environmental policies. Chapter 2 provides new micro-evidence on labor market adjustments and calls for attention to the transitional labor market adjustments to environmental policies. Chapter 3 exploits an aggregate shock of BC's carbon tax to study how replacing full-time (FT) staffers with part-timers shapes a labor market. Chapter 3 uncovers important yet underexplored mechanisms of labor market adjustments through PT switches. With employers increasingly hiring part-timers, PT switches reduce labor hours through labor turnover. Due to a significant wage differential between FT and PT new hires, the average hiring wage is cut: PT switches explain approximately 20 percent of the hiring wage cut. Chapter 3 offers new perspectives on labor market adjustments, quantifies the extent to which the adjustments through PT switches, and calls for policies mitigating labor market underutilization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".