MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Short‐lived Jobs Stepping Stones to Long‐Lasting Jobs?*

2011· article· en· W3205861099 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bart Cockx, Matteo Picchio

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingSpellUnemploymentDuration (music)Quarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsLabour economicsDemographic economicsDisplaced workersStepping stoneTerm (time)PsychologyMacroeconomicsSociologyHistorySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article assesses whether short‐lived jobs (lasting one quarter or less and involuntarily ending in unemployment) are stepping stones to long‐lasting jobs (enduring 1 year or more) for Belgian long‐term unemployed school‐leavers. We proceed in two steps. First, we estimate labour market trajectories in a multi‐spell duration model that incorporates lagged duration and lagged occurrence dependence. Second, in a simulation we find that (fe)male school‐leavers accepting a short‐lived job are, within 2 years, 13.4 (9.5) percentage points more likely to find a long‐lasting job than in the counterfactual in which they reject short‐lived jobs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations84
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Bulletin of Economics and StatisticsSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207