MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Accomodation to a ”New Normality” – Risk or Benefit?

2021· article· en· W4206365013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oana Maria Sicoe-Murg, Teodor Mateoc, Simona Constantinescu, Hunor Vass

Bibliographic record

VenueReview on Agriculture and Rural Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrainingWorkforceBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)EarningsMarketingPublic relationsLabour economicsEconomicsEconomic growthFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pandemia generated by the COVID-19 represents first of all a human tragedy, affecting society at its basis, and the effects induced by this boomerang are reflected on the labour market as well. The pandemia has accentuated the need of automation, even on the level of the insurance market, a fact that creates a lot of stress among the employees. The main purpose of the paper is to highlight the situation of the persons employed in various sectors of activity during the current pandemic conditions. The pandemic in the last year prompted large companies to explore more actively the opportunities to automate their activities. In the paper, the authors present the effects of automation on employed people in various fields of activity, including the field of insurance, which has the effect of losing jobs and replacing human staff with the assistance of artificial technology. After the implementation of automation technologies, the roles and way of working of about a quarter of employees have changed globally, while one of ten employees already needed retraining. This trend will continue to grow, with respondents stating that they will have to retrain a third of the workforce in the next three years as a result of the changing roles. The impact upon sales of goods and services is of a lasting nature and the insurance companies have to adapt their methods to reach their clients where they are, as well as in way of selling an insurance police as in ascertainment of damage and risk inspection.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueReview on Agriculture and Rural Development→Same topicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts→French-language works237,207→