MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405821301 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v17n2p26

Minimum Wage and Effects on Unemployment: The Case of Spain and Its Implications on Simpson’s Paradox and Geographical Mobility

2024· article· en· W4405821301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jorge Monray, Juan Morillo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentEconomicsWageLabour economicsDemographic economicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explains the effects of the Government’s regular increases in the minimum wages on unemployment in Spain. Using a longitudinal analysis covering the years 2010 to 2023 the research collects data split by gender, age group, and Autonomous Community (AC). The data has been adjusted calculating the minimum wage Mean and Mode values. A negative or inverse correlation between minimum wage variables and unemployment is observed presenting Pearson values between -0.4 and -0.6 in most groups. Also, the research applies a one-way ANOVA test. It shows findings of unemployment reduction, specifically in the categories of young males, even though, the minimum wage in Spain has been regularly increased during the last years, in line with other authors. The aggregated and disaggregated data obtained vary and move in opposite directions confirming in a certain way that the principle of the Simpson’s Paradox could take place here. The research also confirms a relevant Estimated Size Effect (ETA) when comparing Autonomous Communities and their influence on unemployment for 55+ years old people.

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)0.007
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207