The Spectre Of Overwork: An Analysis Of Trends Between 1974 And 1997 Using Australian Time-Use Diaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen the emergence of a new politics of working time. Industrial relations specialists, welfare agencies and others have raised the idea that increasing levels of overwork and burgeoning levels of unemployment are two sides of the same coin. There have also been concerns that changes in working hours have constrained employees 'ability to participate in family and community life. Three theoretical perspectives—economics, industrial relations and feminism—have developed a common interest in issues such as the maldistribution of work, the decline in leisure and the balance between working life and private life. This article uses four Australian time use surveys conducted in 1974, 1987, 1992, and 1997 to examine three dimensions of possible change in working hours: (1) the average length of the working day; (2) the distribution of working hours amongst persons; and (3) the amount of time spent at work during nonstandard hours. These time use surveys provide a unique window for looking into changes in working life in A ustralia over the last quarter of a century, a period of major upheaval in A ustralian society. Analysis of these surveys shows that the average number of hours that Australians supply to the labour market has not changed markedly between 1974 and 1997. However, there has been a significant redistribution of paid work from men to women, thus creating more dual-earner households. There has also been a substantial collapse in the dominance of standard working hours, while the amount of time workers spend at work during nonstandard hours appears to have increased.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".