MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098287624

Explaining the Recent Rise in Self-Employment: Lifecycle, Cohort and Aggregate Economy Effects,'' mimeo

2001· article· en· W7098287624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiological and pharmacological studies of plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggregate (composite)CohortCohort effectAggregate dataAggregate expenditureIdentification (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the trends and patterns in self-employment in Canada and the United States. In the first part of the paper, an analysis of aggregate and disaggregated trends is presented. The identification of lifecycle, cohort and aggregate economy effects on these trends are then discussed and estimates of their relative importance provided. Little evidence of cohort effects is found, and although a clear lifecycle pattern exists, the age structure in either country did not change enough to account for a majority of the increase in self-employment. Instead, aggregate economy effects are found to be the source of most of the increase in both countries. Various candidates for these aggregate effects offered in the literature are then briefly examined for congruence with the pattern of aggregate economy effects, purged of cohort and lifecycle effects. The results provide some support for the hypothesis that individuals enter self-employment to evade both income and employment taxes. Minimum wages also have strongly significant relationships with the estimated aggregate effects but produced opposite signs for the two

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiological and pharmacological studies of plantsFrench-language works237,207