MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232673999 · doi:10.32920/14663049.v1

Job-Education Match & Tenure Among Young Canadians: Evidence from the 1997 & 2014 Labour Force Survey

2021· preprint· en· W4232673999 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael Turk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsWorkforceDemographic economicsLabour economicsHigher educationWork (physics)PsychologyBusinessEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the growing supply of postsecondary education graduates and the persistence of overqualification in the Canadian labour market, this study investigates the relationship between the levels of job-education match and tenure among young workers, 25 to 34 years of age, relative to the remaining workforce ages 35 to 64, using a job analysis (JA) approach based on skill levels defined by the National Occupational Classification (NOC) 2011 and education credentials defined by Statistics Canada. Using the 1997 and 2014 Labour Force Survey (LFS) files, a significant negative relationship is observed between length of tenure and overqualified workers, and a significant positive relationship with underqualified workers, in addition to significant differences in the effect that being over/underqualified has on tenure based on respondents’ age and survey year. Implications for individual, organizational, and societal stakeholders involved in the school-to-work transition are discussed.

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)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality→French-language works237,207→