MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386849357 · doi:10.3390/admsci13090209

How Do the Labour Force Characteristics Encounter COVID-19 Economic Consequences—A Canadian Experience

2023· article· en· W4386849357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arsena Gjipali, Valbona Karapici, Nevila Baci

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministrative Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrodata (statistics)UnemploymentPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmigrationEconomicsPopulationDemographic economicsLabour supplyInequalityLabour economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper draws on a current international analysis of pandemic consequences in the labour market and on the way different segments have been impacted. The purpose is to provide a critical investigation of the facts and arguments regarding how and why the consequences of the same health epidemic are differently faced at an uneven socio-economic burden. The objectives are twofold: First, we aim to explore on an international level the inequality settings that COVID-19 has highlighted, focusing on the most affected economic pillars such as the labour market. Second, we provide an empirical analysis of the likelihood of Canadian labour force participants to be unemployed before and after COVID-19, as one of the measurable effects of the pandemic. We assess how the likelihood of the working-age population falling into the unemployment pool varies before, during and immediately after the pandemic restrictions ease, using Canadian Labour Force Survey microdata. The findings indicate that mainly immigrants and youth suffered the most, pointing out their probably higher participation in precarious jobs and calling for policy initiatives to fix the structural faults in the labour market.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdministrative SciencesSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207