Has There Been a She-covery? The Financial Crisis of 2008 and Its Impact on the Ontario Labour Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The labour market turmoil associated with the financial crisis that began in late 2008 provides an opportunity to test the effect of the feminization of labour markets on how modern labour markets function in times of crisis (Armstrong, 1996; Vosko, 2000; Korkki, 2011). This paper will focus on two related questions. The first is whether men and women had different experiences as labour markets began to recover in November 2010. The second is whether the standard employment contract, that implies that workers with more seniority will be offered a degree of employment security in exchange for loyalty to a company, has frayed. These questions are explored by comparing the pre- and post-financial crisis labour market outcomes of 791 individuals employed in an area centred on Toronto and bounded by Hamilton in the west and Oshawa in the east. Evidence is presented on changes in having paid employment, the degree of employment security, the form of the employment relationship, and the characteristics of the employment relationship. Study participants completed a detailed survey describing their employment in June 2005 and again in November 2010. The paper assesses the accuracy of reports that suggest that the quality of employment had returned to pre-financial crisis levels by the spring of 2011 (Tal, 2011; Cross, 2011). The findings suggest there has been a gendered dimension to the post-financial crisis recovery in labour markets. However, the nature of this effect is not as simple as women finding more secure, better paying employment, or men being forced into less secure employment. For the sample as a whole, men were marginally more likely than women to be in paid employment. Young men were the most successful in finding more secure employment. Middle-aged men were the most likely to remain in paid employment in the post-financial crisis labour market, but at the cost of accepting less secure employment and employment that was less likely to have the characteristics of the standard employment relationship.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".