Les déterminants organisationnels et individuels de l'emploi atypique : le cas du cumul d'emplois et du travail autonome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the company has been attributed relative control over employees' career paths, particularly in the case of very active organizational management. However, the growing need for organizational flexibility has led to the increasing recourse to atypical work, which in turn contributes to consolidating new careers in which the themes of control and autonomy acquire new meaning. Of these forms of atypical work, multiple jobholding and self-employment have particularly intrigued researchers. Using data compiled by Statistics Canada, we have sought to identify, through logistic regression analyses, the factors that influence the probability of belonging to these two categories of atypical employment. Our results suggest that the influence factors are not identical for the non-standard two job categories studied. Sector of activity, sex and the absence of promotion have a considerable impact on the probability of joining the ranks of the self-employed, whereas professional category and frequency of movement significantly influence the probability of belonging to the multiple jobholder group. Our results also show that the makeup of the populations engaging in these two forms of atypical work is not homogeneous, and that belonging to one of these groups does not necessarily entail precarious living and working conditions. Le role traditionnel de la gestion de carriere attribuait a l'entreprise un certain controle sur le cheminement des individus, dans la mesure ou la prise en charge organisationnelle etait tres active. Toutefois, le besoin incessant de flexibilite organisationnelle, qui mene a l'utilisation croissante du travail atypique, contribue a la consolidation des nouvelles carrieres dans lesquelles les themes du controle et de l'autonomie sont questionnes. Parmi ces formes de travail atypique, le cumul d'emplois et le travail autonome/a son compte ont particulierement retenu l'attention des chercheurs. En utilisant des donnees produites par Statistique Canada, nous avons cherche a identifier, par l'entremise des analyses de regression logistique, les facteurs qui influencent la probabilite de faire partie de ces deux categories d'emploi atypique. Nos resultats suggerent que les facteurs d'influence ne sont pas les memes pour les deux categories d'emploi non standard considerees. Le secteur d'activite, le sexe et les promotions jouent davantage sur la probabilite de joindre les effectifs des autonomes/a son compte alors que la categorie professionnelle, la frequence du mouvement et l'absence de promotion influencent davantage la probabilite d'appartenir au groupe des cumulards. Finalement, nos resultats montrent que les effectifs de ces deux types de travail atypique ne sont pas homogenes et que l'appartenance a l'un ou l'autre de ces groupes n'implique pas exclusivement la precarite des conditions de vie et de travail.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".