Directions for advancing the study of work transitions in the 21st century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to share the details, outcomes and deliverables from an international workshop on work transitions in London, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers, graduate students, and community group members met to identity ways to advance the knowledge base of strategies to enhance work participation for those in the most disadvantaged groups within society. METHODS: A participatory approach was used in this workshop with presentations by researchers and graduate students. This approach included dialogue and discussion with community members. In addition, small group dialogue and debate, world cafe discussions, written summaries of group discussion and reflection boards were used to bring new ideas to the discussion and to build upon what we know. FINDINGS: Two research imperatives and six research recommendations were identified to advance global dialogue on work transitions and to advance the knowledge base. Occupational justice can be used to support future research directions in the study of work transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Moving forward requires a commitment of community of researchers, clinicians and stakeholders to address work disparities and implement solutions to promote participation in work.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".