Les motifs du passage au travail autonome selon une enquete electronique aupres de travailleurs autonomes quebecois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les explications de la forte croissance du travail autonome au Canada depuis les annees 1970 sont encore embryonnaires et souvent antinomiques. En nous appuyant sur les resultats d'une enquete par questionnaire via l'internet aupres d'un echantillon de 750 travailleurs autonomes quebecois, nous voulons contribuer a approfondir la comprehension du phenomene en proposant une typologie des travailleurs autonomes selon leur appreciation des motifs et de circonstances qui les ont amenes a ce statut d'emploi. Cette analyse exploratoire de 15 groupes de travailleurs autonomes met en evidence la complexite des motifs et des facteurs qui inciteraient ou forceraient des individus a opter en plus grand nombre pour ce statut d'emploi. La grande majorite des repondants a notre enquete expliquent leur passage au travail autonome par la combinaison de plusieurs motifs associes a des contextes fort variables. Les facteurs pull et push ne semblent pas se concurrencer, mais plus souvent se conjuguer pour expliquer la plus grande propension au travail autonome. Les travailleurs autonomes strictement volontaires et involontaires formeraient des categories minoritaires.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".