Work Arrangements in New Zealand: First Results from the Survey of Working Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work arrangements in New Zealand have changed substantially in the last 30 years, leading to increased diversity in contracting arrangements, hours and times worked, and terms and conditions of employment. This paper describes the current work arrangements, employment conditions and job satisfaction levels of employed people in New Zealander from data collected in the Survey of Working Life. The survey was run as a supplement to the Household Labour Force Survey in the March 2008 quarter, to answer questions such as: 'How prevalent is casual work in New Zealand?', 'How many employed people work non-standard hours?’ and 'Who is most likely to experience stress or discrimination at work?’ The focus o f the data analysis is to identify workers with different types of employment relationships (for example, temporary versus permanent employees), and describe the demographic and job characteristics associated with these different employment relationships. Working-time patterns and conditions of employment are the other key topics examined in this paper. It is intended that this supplement be repeated every three years to monitor changes in employment conditions, work arrangements and job quality in New Zealand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".