MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295007874 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86065-3_12

Digital Networking and the Case of Youth Unemployment in South Africa

2022· book-chapter· en· W4295007874 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Shaw, Laurel Wheeler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsDisadvantagedYouth unemploymentUnemploymentIntervention (counseling)Job trainingPsychologyPolitical scienceBusinessMedical educationEconomic growthMedicineEconomicsVocational educationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract South Africa has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment and under-employment around the world, despite having a relatively large formal sector. This is driven, in part, by frictions in labor markets, including lack of information about job applicants’ skills, limited access to job training, and employers’ reliance on referrals through professional networks for hiring. This case study explores whether the online platform LinkedIn can be used to improve the employment outcomes of disadvantaged youth in South Africa. Researchers worked with an NGO, the Harambee Youth Employment Accelerator, to develop a training for young workseekers in the use of LinkedIn for job search, applications, and networking for referrals. This intervention was randomized across 30 cohorts of youth, with more than 1600 students enrolled in the study. The research team worked with LinkedIn engineers to access data generated by the platform. The evaluation finds that participants exposed to the LinkedIn training (the “treated” participants) were 10% more likely than the control group to find immediate employment, an effect that persisted for at least a year after job readiness training.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207