MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1742897440 · doi:10.3233/wor-2011-1140

The health consequences of precarious employment experiences

2011· article· en· W1742897440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Scott‐Marshall, Emile Tompa

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvertimeEarningsVulnerability (computing)Demographic economicsWork (physics)PensionJob securitySocial securitySurvey data collectionLogistic regressionPrecarious workBusinessEconomicsPsychologyLabour economicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study provides a test of a conceptual framework of the stress-related health consequences of "precarious" employment experiences defined as those associated with instability, lack of protection, insecurity across various dimensions of work, and social and economic vulnerability. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Canadian Survey of Labor and Income Dynamics (SLID), a nationally representative longitudinal labor-market survey (1999-2004). Logistic regression analysis estimated the impact of several dimensions of precarious employment on two health outcomes: low health status and low functional health. PARTICIPANTS: For each calendar year we selected a subsample of individuals with close ties to the labor-market--i.e., aged 25 to 54, not full-time students, and employed at least 9 months of the year. We excluded individuals who were self-employed, those in management-level positions, and individuals who reported less than good health at the beginning of the year. RESULTS: Certain work characteristics (low earnings, the lack of an annual wage increase, substantial unpaid overtime hours, the absence of pension benefits, manual work) predict an increased risk of adverse general and/or functional health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive regulatory initiatives and all-encompassing benefits programs are urgently required to address emerging work forms and arrangements that present risks to health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations87
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207