The graduates of '82: where are they?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian labour market is not static. The recent economic recession and recovery, industrial restructuring and technological change have had a profound impact, and will continue to do so. How have young workers, especially the highly educated ones, fared through these developments? This study offers some insights by examining the experiences of a recent (1982) group of Canadian university and community college graduates over a five-year period, 1982-1987. (1) Of particular interest in this study are: l Which fields of study offered the best employment opportunities and earnings? l How good was the match between a graduate's job and the field of study? l What was the pattern of interprovincial mobility following graduation? l How different were the short- and longer-term school-to-work transitional experiences? Field of study Most of the analysis in this study revolves around the various fields of study of the 1982 graduates. Education and the combined group of commerce, economics and law were the two most popular fields of study among the university graduates, each accounting for 19 % of the total (Table 1). Among the community college graduates, health sciences was the most popular field (18%), followed closely by management and administration (16%) and by secretarial science and merchandising (15%). (2)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".