MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022760859 · doi:10.1177/09500172004042770

Caring for Nothing

2004· article· en· W2022760859 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork Employment and Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforcePublic relationsWork (physics)NothingSocial workAltruism (biology)Coercion (linguistics)BusinessSociologySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychologyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unwaged work is a widespread practice in the pro-market, non-market public and non-profit social services in Canada. Under performance-based models of public management new forms of work organization have standardized social services work and expanded the use of volunteers, including the volunteer labour of paid employees. Increasingly routinized work makes it easier for unwaged volunteers to assume work, and for managers to supervise it. New developments include heightened expectations from management and a willingness of workers to perform volunteer work in their own or other agencies. The article suggests that the unwaged social services workforce operates along a continuum with ‘compulsion’ at one end and ‘coercion’ on the other. As workers’ identities and knowledge base are tied to notions of altruism and caring, and there are often implicit threats to their continued employment, most workers are not refusing unwaged work. Rather they see this and other forms of unpaid work as resistance against an increasingly alienating society, as well as a way to meet the needs of clients, relatives and friends.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.323 · 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