The experience of traineeships in the EU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of traineeships in the EU" 5 KEY FINDINGSAround half of respondents report having had a traineeship (46%). More young people report having had a traineeship (46%) than an apprenticeship or student job (both 26%).Only a third of young people have had none of these experiences (32%).Traineeships are most common in Cyprus and the Netherlands (both 79%) and least common in Lithuania and Slovakia (both 8%). Respondents in France (41%), Finland (36%) and the Netherlands (31%) were most likely to have had more than three traineeships.Almost six out of ten respondents did not receive any financial compensation during their last (i.e.most recent) traineeship (59%). Among those who received financial compensation, less than half say this financial compensation was sufficient to cover basic living costs (46%). The highest number of respondents to receive financial compensation is in Slovenia (81%) while the lowest is found in Belgium (19%). Around three quarters of respondents said they were covered by insurance (73%).The majority of trainees think that their experience was or would be useful to find a regular job (71%), but more than one in four disagree (28%). The share of those who felt the traineeship helped or would help finding a job was highest in Romania and Ireland (both 85%) followed by Belgium, Spain, and Portugal (all 83%), while the share of those who felt that their last traineeship did or would not help finding a job was highest in Poland (43%), Cyprus (37%), Lithuania (36%) and Germany (34%).A high share of respondents has had multiple traineeships. Amongst those that have had at least one traineeship experience, 38% answered that they had only one traineeship, 22% had two, 14% had three, and 21% had four or more traineeshipsThe quality of the last traineeship was often better than that of another previous one 3 . In particular, while 10% of respondents said that they did not learn things that are useful professionally in the last traineeship, almost one in five (18%) report the same for another one undertaken previously. A similar pattern is visible in another question: while in the last traineeship 9% of respondents could not turn to a mentor that helped them and explained how to do the work, this share rises to 11% for a previous traineeship.3 Respondents who had more than one traineeship were asked more questions about one of their other traineeship experiences, which was randomly chosen.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".