Labour Force Sample Survey 1985, 1st quarter, new estimation factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SSB has conducted official quarterly labor force surveys (LFS) from Q1 1972. The survey aims to provide labor authorities and others familiar with the occupational structure of population and development over time. The surveys will provide the basis and statistical material for occupational forecasting and labor market research. In the LFS one respondent is interviewed for two consecutive quarters, then there's a break for two quarters and then the respondent is interviewed again for two consecutive quarters. The sample was approximately 10 to 11,000 respondents each quarter until the 1988. The Labour Force Survey 1976 is the fifth full year with LFS. Originally it was intended that the LFS should be an analytical supplement to the monthly employment statistics that were based on the insurance fund membership files. The insurance fund-based statistics, however, fell away when health insurance was included in the National Insurance Scheme from 1 January 1971, the LFS has gradually evolved to become the main source of knowledge about the state of the labor market. In 1975 SSB changed the selection plan for surveys, see respectively Art.37: On the use of random samples at the office for interview surveys, Statistics Norway (Steinar Tamsfoss) and SES 33: Principles and Methods of Statistics Norway samples (Ib Thomsen) Meanwhile, the estimation method for inflating national figures changed so that there are reasonable numbers for regions from the 1975 reorganization in 1975 led to interviews changing in how they were performed in the pools before and after. This meant, among other things a break from the Panel system used in the LFS. By Labour Force Survey 1976, it was adopted a slightly modified questionnaire and we came back on the original six-quarter rotation schedule. The new questionnaire meant that people in the group and family workers temporarily absent from work were identified in a better way. This resulted in approximately 30 to 35,000 more were counted as employed. Group seekers without work income was also expanded to include involuntarily laid off. The questions of subordinates and employment in the original form was deleted From Q1 1987 the estimation method (inflating the national figures) slightly changed, moreover, there was a minor adjustment to the definition of employment. To achieve comparability backwards in time was therefore developed new versions of LFS files back to 1980 From 1980 there are therefore two versions of the files, respectively, with the "old" and "new" estimation method. Old means that data are comparable to the original published figures for the period 1972-1987, new means of data for the period 1980-1987 which utilizes this estimation factor (weight) is comparable with the figures published after 1987 This file is based on the NEW estimation method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".