Lasting Disadvantage? Comparing Career Trajectories of Matched Temporary and Permanent Workers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the economic insecurity associated with temporary employment transitory or lasting? What accounts for differences in medium‐run earnings trajectories for workers first observed in temporary and permanent jobs? Although there is now a considerable body of research investigating mobility outcomes for temporary workers, most studies focus on single transition points and pay little attention to the quality of subsequent employment beyond its temporary or permanent status. In this paper, we compare income trajectories for a nationally representative sample of Canadian temporary workers and a set of permanent workers selected to match them as closely as possible on personal, job, and work‐history characteristics. We find that temporary workers start out with lower incomes and fail to catch up to their permanent counterparts over the next five years. Differences are more pronounced for women. L'insécurité économique associée à l'emploi temporaire est‐elle passagère ou durable ? Comment peut‐on expliquer les différences de trajectoires des revenus à moyen terme entre les travailleurs dans des emplois temporaires et ceux dans des emplois permanents au début de l'étude ? Bien qu'il y ait maintenant une masse considérable de recherche portant sur la mobilité économique des intérimaires, la plupart des études se concentrent sur un seul point de transition et accordent peu d'attention à la qualité de l'emploi par la suite, mis à part son statut temporaire ou permanent. Dans cet article, nous comparons les trajectoires de revenu pour un échantillon national représentatif d'intérimaires canadiens ainsi qu'un ensemble de travailleurs permanents choisis avec le plus de précision possible sur la base de leurs similarités avec l'échantillon d'intérimaires en ce qui concernent leurs données démographiques, leur emploi, et leur historique de travail. Nous concluons que les intérimaires commencent avec des revenus inférieurs et ne parviennent pas à rattraper le groupe des travailleurs permanents sur une période de cinq ans. Les différences sont plus prononcées pour les femmes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".