MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012081183 · doi:10.1017/s0144686x0800768x

Prolonging the careers of older information technology workers: continuity, exit or retirement transitions?

2009· article· en· W2012081183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Libby Brooke

Bibliographic record

VenueAgeing and Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamismWorkforcePaceNormativeRetirement ageLabour economicsBusinessDemographic economicsResizingPolitical scienceEuropean unionEconomic growthEconomicsFinanceLawEconomic policyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The article explores the ways in which older workers' career trajectories influenced their exit from or continuity of employment in the Australian information technology (IT) industry. The data were collected through qualitative interviews with 71 employees of 10 small and medium-sized IT firms as part of the cross-countryWorkforce Ageing in the New Economyproject (WANE), which was conducted in Canada, the United States, Australia and several European Union countries (the United Kingdom, Germany and The Netherlands). The analysis revealed that older IT workers' capacity to envisage careers beyond their fifties was constrained by age-based ‘normative’ capability assumptions that resulted in truncated careers, dissuaded the ambition to continue in work, and induced early retirement. The workers' constricted, age-bound perspectives on their careers were reinforced by the rapid pace of technological and company transformations. A structural incompatibility was found between the exceptional dynamism and competitiveness of the IT industry and the conventional age-staged and extended career. The analysis showed that several drivers of occupational career trajectories besides the well-researched health and financial factors predisposed ‘default transitions’ to exit and retirement. The paper concludes with policy and practice recommendations for the prolongation of IT workers' careers and their improved alignment with the contemporary lifecourse.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgeing and SocietySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207