MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096928934

Effects of population aging on labour market flows in Canada: analytical issues and research priorities. HISSRI Working Paper 2003 A-02

2015· article· en· W7096928934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrainingPopulation ageingAffect (linguistics)PopulationUnemploymentPublic policyWorking population
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in the mix of goods consumed, and changes in the age mix of the labour force are the two main channels via which population aging is likely to affect labour market flows in Canada. In this paper I argue that research should focus primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) on the second of these channels, because these effects are more direct and will occur earlier. Promising research directions in the area of labour force aging and worker flows include descriptive research on trends in labour market flows by age and education; research on the consequences of mobility (across jobs, employers, occupations, industries and regions) for older workers; understanding the effects of Canada's multifaceted income support and retraining system on older job movers, especially older job losers; studying the cost-effectiveness of retraining for older workers and the optimal targetting of such retraining; defining and identifying age discrimination in employment and the effects of public policy thereon; understanding the implications of downsizings and plant closures for older workers; and improving our understanding of the way a firm's age structure affects its behaviour and performance. In addition, research that helps assess the relative importance of some of the key processes generating labour market flows in the first place--for example, on-the-job search versus creative destruction processes-- would improve our understanding of the effects of aging on labour flows as well.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207