Investigating PhDs’ early career occupational outcomes in Italy: individual motivations, role of supervisor and gender differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper examines how individual motivations, the role of the supervisor and gender influence the early career path of doctorate holders. We investigate PhD graduates’ occupational outcomes beyond academia in the framework of current literature on the oversupply of PhD holders and labor market constraints. Our analysis relies on two unique datasets. The first, at the national level, includes microdata from the Italian National Institute of Statistics regarding about 41,000 graduates who account for over 70% of the population of 6 cohorts surveyed for the period 2004–2014. The other dataset is from a single university, and resulted from an original survey of 760 PhD holders who earned their doctorates from the University of Turin in 2007–2017. We find that PhD holders’ motivation towards science is associated with their subsequent employment in academia or in other research and non-research jobs. Sponsoring support in early career and the supervisor’s propensity for basic research also play a role in the future academic career path. Gender differences in type of occupation, however, continue to persist even taking motivations and the supervisor’s role into account.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".