50 + among the 50+: who works long workweeks among older workers in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this short report is on workers who are 50+ years of age and who have a work schedule averaging 50+ hours per week (i.e. a ‘long workweek’), using Statistics Canada's linked Workplace and Employee Survey (WES) 2005 microdata, as well as selected qualitative study findings. The results show that the proportion having a long workweek is actually higher among older workers relative to others. Also, mean job satisfaction among older workers with a long workweek is at least as high as older workers without one, whether or not controlling for other factors. In terms of the characteristics of older workers with a long workweek, this is overwhelmingly a male-dominated group, and the majority are in a managerial/professional occupation. Thus, they do not exhibit the characteristics typically associated with those having poor quality schedules or employment. Since older workers represent a growing proportion of labour markets in industrialised nations, it is important that these workers access sufficiently attractive employment opportunities to keep them in the labour force. However, the findings provide yet another reminder that workers' scheduling realities and preferences are not homogeneous.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".