MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134412143 · doi:10.1111/obes.12435

Work disability and the Northern Irish Troubles*

2021· article· en· W3134412143 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Declan French, Sharon Cruise

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilOffice of the First Minister and Deputy First MinisterQueen's UniversityHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionPublic Health AgencyAtlantic PhilanthropiesCentre for Ageing Research and Development in IrelandUnited Kingdom Clinical Research CollaborationWellcome TrustQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsEndogeneityCausationIrishPoliticsPatrollingWork (physics)TerrorismCriminologyDemographic economicsPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we examine the labour market implications of permanent illness or injury from conflict among civilians. From 1969 to 1998, Northern Ireland experienced a violent ethnopolitical conflict characterized by terrorist bombing campaigns, sectarian killings and armed forces patrolling the streets. The consequences of this period for current high work disability rates are disputed by the main political parties. We address this question using a new high‐quality dataset. Potential endogeneity and reverse causation issues are addressed using the intensity of conflict‐related deaths as instruments. We find clear evidence that conflict has increased work disability by 28% points. The main doctor‐diagnosed medical condition mediating this effect is mental ill health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Bulletin of Economics and StatisticsSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207