MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979727975

Active Residents. Dynamic, segmented employment

2024· preprint· en· W6979727975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortugueseQuarter (Canadian coin)ConurbationPrivate sectorWork (physics)Public sector
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021, Luxembourg will have almost 280,000 resident workers, 59.2% of whom were born abroad. The main sector of activity is public administration (31.1% of resident employment), which is made up of 70% native-born employees and 58.5% women. Luxembourgish is the most widely used language. In terms of occupations, native-born workers outnumber foreign-born workers in all sectors, but only in intermediate and administrative occupations. Next, sectors involving various types of professional services (finance, insurance, communication, specialised and scientific activities and other services) collectively account for 36.3% of resident employment. Luxembourg City and its conurbation absorb 80% of these jobs, where English is predominant, followed by French. Nine out of every ten university graduates employed in these services were born abroad. Finally, elementary, manual and technical occupations in the private sector account for almost a quarter of residents’ employment. 80% of these jobs are filled by foreign-born workers, and Portuguese is over-represented. Almost 90% of these workers are men, except in the elementary professions where women are in the majority. Overall, French is the language most used at work (69.2% of resident workers).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.014

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg)Same topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207