Canadian linked employer-employee data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study measure the impact of absenteeism on output and wages at the firm level. The objective is to test whether wages equal marginal productivity and therefore comment on the appropriateness of using wages to value the productivity loss as per the human capital approach. Pooled data (1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005) from the Canadian Workplace and Employee Survey was used. The impact of absenteeism on output at the firm level was estimated using a modified Cobb-Douglas production function. Production and wage functions were simultaneously estimated to compare marginal productivity and wages for absenteeism using nonlinear least squares and first differences. Bootstrapping was employed to test for equality of the parameters. This study provides evidence suggesting that absenteeism results in lower productivity and wages, and the reduced wage due to absenteeism somewhat under-represents the reduced productivity for team workers. When workers are absent, the resulting productivity losses exceed wages if team work is involved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.013 |
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".