MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121923131 · doi:10.34989/swp-1997-12

A Micro Approach to the Issue of Hysteresis in Unemployment: Evidence from the 19881990 Labour Market Activity Survey

2021· preprint· en· W3121923131 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentHumanitiesPolitical scienceEconomicsArtEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses a rich set of microeconomic labour market data—the 1988­90 Labour Market Activity Survey published by Statistics Canada—to test whether there is negative duration dependence in unemployment spells. It updates and extends similar work carried out by Jones (1995) who used the 1986­87 Labour Market Activity Survey. Applying hazard model estimation, the analysis finds some evidence of negative duration dependence at the microeconomic level, which is consistent with the de-skilling hypothesis of hysteresis. These microeconomic estimates of negative duration dependence are used to compute macroeconomic estimates of hysteresis in unemployment. The results suggest that hysteresis effects from de-skilling are very small at the macro level, contributing less than 0.1 percentage points to the aggregate unemployment rate. The small estimated size of this hysteresis effect may explain why evidence of hysteresis has been so difficult to find at the macroeconomic level. The paper also shows that Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits reduce the probability of exiting from unemployment and that unemployment duration does not seem to be prolonged by reservation-wage effects.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207