Worksharing in the U.S. and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During downturns organizations may adjust labor by reducing employment levels or by reducing the average hours worked by employees. The latter, often termed worksharing, is widely used when organizations expect a decline in demand to be temporary, as during a recession. In the United States, about a third of states have formal worksharing or short-time compensation programs, in which individuals whose hours have been reduced for economic reasons may receive pro-rated unemployment insurance benefits. Short-time compensation programs are well-established in many other industrialized countries, including Canada and Germany. These programs, which facilitate the use of hours reductions in lieu of layoffs, garnered much interest in this country and abroad during the Great Recession as a potential mechanism for mitigating job losses. In this project we exploit cross-state and cross-country variation in short-time compensation programs to study program effects on use of employment versus hours adjustment during the recent recession. We also examine whether there is any evidence in support of the hypothesis that short-time compensation programs increased employment levels (by mitigating job loss) in the recession. We consider institutional factors in the design and implementation of these programs in explaining the evidence—or lack of evidence—on program effects.
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 | 0.032 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".