The Dismal State of the Nation’s Teen Summer Job Market, 2008-2012, and the Employment Outlook for the Summer of 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regrettably, the last decade in the United States has been labeled a “lost decade” by a number of economic and social science analysts.1 Total nonfarm payroll employment failed to experience any net growth between 2000 and 2010, yielding a decade with the poorest job creation performance in the past 70 years. All persons under 55 years of age were less likely to be working in 2011-2012 than in 2000, with the size of declines in these employment rates being strongly connected with one’s age. Persons 55-57 years of age basically held their own while persons 58-79 were more likely to be working in 2010-2011 than in 2000. Employment has declined far more among teens (16-19) and young adults (20-24) than any other age group in the country.2 Job growth after the end of the Great Recession of 2007-09 still has left our teens far behind their older counterparts, having not generated even one net new job for them since the last quarter of 2009. In the “full employment” year of 2000, 45 per cent of the nation’s teens (16-19) were employed during an average month. By 2003, their employment/population ratio had declined to 36.8% and basically remained stagnant over the next three years while all other age groups saw an increase in their employment rates between 2003 and 2007. By 2007, the teen employment-population ratio dropped slightly below 35% and declined steadily through the Great Recession and the jobless recovery. In 2011 and 2012, only 26 per cent of the nation’s teens held any type of paid job, the lowest annual average employment rate in the history of our country in the post-World War II era.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".