MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116056969 · doi:10.1177/002071520204300205

Seeking Work Daily: Supply, Demand, and Spatial Dimensions of Day Labor in Two Global Cities

2002· article· en· W2116056969 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abel Valenzuela, Janette Kawachi, Matthew D. Marr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationWork (physics)Labor demandLabour economicsSupply and demandDemographic economicsBusinessEconomyEconomicsEconomic growthGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Day labor, the industry in which workers, primarily men, seek temporary employment daily in open-air street markets or curb-side hiring sites, is a burgeoning market in the United States and a historically important, but declining industry in Japan. Using data from surveys of day laborers in Tokyo and Los Angeles, we analyze the unique characteristics of these two markets, comparing and contrasting the workers, the demand for their employment, and the spatial dimensions of this industry. We find that day laborers in Los Angeles are predominantly young, recent immigrants undertaking varied jobs. In contrast, day laborers in Tokyo are aging and mostly native Japanese displaced from Japan’s slouching post-industrial economy. Demand for day labor is equally contrasting. In Los Angeles, employers are more diversified, associated with a network of industries, and a consumer base that is broad and elastic. On the other hand, employers in Tokyo are overwhelmingly in construction and day laborers only cater to sub-contractors or middlemen. We speculate on the future of day labor in both cities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207