MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121204844 · doi:10.7202/016490ar

An Institutional Perspective on the Employment Position of Temporary Workers in the Netherlands

2007· article· en· W2121204844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeroen P. de Jong, René Schalk, Tobias Goessling

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedPosition (finance)Labour economicsGovernment (linguistics)Temporary workLabour lawDistribution (mathematics)Power (physics)Perspective (graphical)EconomicsBusinessMarket economyEconomic growthWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the complex employment position of temporary workers within organizations and on the labour market. Temporary employment is usually considered secondary to permanent employment. In recent years, the European Union and the Dutch government have attempted to change this situation by formulating several directives and labour laws. In this paper, we use institutional theory to discuss the institutional foundations and influences that shape the employment and labour-market conditions of temporary workers. The analysis shows that the core issues regarding temporary employment conditions include conflicting (legitimate) interests, socially constructed norms that favour permanent workers, and an uneven distribution of power. Our analysis further shows that institutional forces generate a structural justification for the disadvantaged position of temporary workers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207