MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255241740 · doi:10.5860/choice.41-2559

A Chartbook of international labor comparisons

2004· article· en· W4255241740 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Excerpt] This chartbook focuses on the labor market situation in selected countries for the most recent year available; some charts also show trends. Charts in sections 1-4 and section 6 include countries in North America (the United States, Canada, and Mexico) and selected Asian-Pacific and European economies. Some countries do not appear on all charts due to the lack of suitable data. It should also be noted that the selected economies are not representative of all of Europe and the Asian-Pacific region; rather, they tend to be the more industrialized economies in these regions. Weighted aggregates for 15 European Union countries (EU-15) also are shown on many of the charts in these sections. These represent European Union member countries prior to the expansion of the European Union to 25 countries on May 1, 2004, and to 27 countries on January 1, 2007. The EU-15 countries are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In section 5, several indicators are presented for six large emerging economies: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, and South Africa. The appendix describes the definitions, sources, and methods used to compile the data in the chartbook. For some series, the appendix provides cautions about the exact comparability of the measures.

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)0.012
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0190.044
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1580.067

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207