MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159723590

The Stalled Jobs Recovery Pushed 1.1 Million Older Workers Out Of The Labor Force

2021· article· en· W3159723590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Owen Davis, Bridget Fisher, Teresa Ghilarducci, Siavash Radpour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentFellRecessionWorkforceQuarter (Canadian coin)Falling (accident)Demographic economicsLabour economicsEnforcementMedicineEconomicsDemographyPolitical scienceEconomic growthGeographyEnvironmental healthSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An examination of the status of older workers in the fourth quarter of 2020 reveals three highlights: After a partial recovery between May and August of 2020, older workers' labor force participation rate fell continuously, reaching its lowest point of the recession in January. Roughly 1.1 million older workers exited the workforce between August and January due to the pandemic recession; older workers' unemployment rate fell in January 2020 by 0.7 percentage points but the decline was driven by unemployed workers leaving the labor force rather than finding jobs; and since October of 2020, the decline in employment for Black, Hispanic, and Asian older workers was more than twice that of white older workers. Policy recommendations include Congress facilitating older workers' return to work with aggressive anti-age discrimination enforcement and expanded unemployment benefits. Congress must also lower the Medicare eligibility age to age 50 and make the program “first payer†to lower the cost of hiring older workers.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207