MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409233545 · doi:10.1080/01442872.2025.2488356

Economic complexity and employment in emerging countries: a comparative analysis

2025· article· en· W4409233545 on OpenAlexaff
Tolulope Temilola Osinubi, Munacinga Simatele, Olajide O. Oyadeyi

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsEconomic analysisRegional scienceGeographyClassical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic complexity is a measure of a country’s knowledge intensity by assessing the diversity and sophistication of its exports, productivity and development levels. However, the current literature does not comprehensively understand how economic complexity influences different employment segments in emerging economies. Employment is a significant component of sustainable development, particularly when considering the youthful population of emerging economies. Therefore, the study examined the role of economic complexity on employment in BRICS + and MINT countries, using data spanning 27 years, from 1995 to 2021. The study employs panel-corrected standard error and feasible generalized least squares estimators. The findings show that regardless of the employment indicators used, the results demonstrate that economic complexity significantly and positively impacts the employment rate in BRICS + and MINT countries. In addition, when the MINT and BRICS + countries are examined in separate regression models, the findings suggest that the effect of economic complexity on aggregate and youth employment is higher in MINT countries compared to BRICS + countries. In comparison, the effect of economic complexity on industrial employment is higher in BRICS + countries than in MINT countries. These results support BRICS + and MINT nations’ efforts to enhance the capacity of their economies to produce more complex goods.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy StudiesSame topicEconomic and Technological InnovationFrench-language works237,207