MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6980675449

Competitive Strategies and Worker Outcomes in the US Retail Industry

2010· article· en· W6980675449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetail industryQuarter (Canadian coin)WorkforceStock (firearms)Retail tradeGrocery shoppingRetail sales
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The retail industry is both the largest industry in the U.S. in terms of employment, and the largest employer of low‐wage workers in the U.S. Though over‐ all, women made up 49% of the retail workforce in 2007, just above the economy‐wide proportion of 47%, when we narrow our sights to part‐time, frontline retail workers (cashiers and stock clerks), the female percentage jumps to 64%, compared to only 33% in management.\n Retail salaries are low, particularly for the many part‐time workers. Frontline grocery workers—cashiers and stock clerks—earn 57 percent of the average hourly rate across all private industries. In electronics, frontline workers do a little better at 85 percent of the average wage. Not surprisingly, this is at least in part a gender story. Half of all grocery store workers are female compared with just over a quarter (28%) of electronics workers. Among full‐ time, frontline workers the gender disparity between grocery and electronics is even greater.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)→Same topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders→French-language works237,207→