Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-standard employment is fairly common in Canada, accounting for almost two in five workers aged 16 to 69. Concerns about nonstandard work arise because workers in these jobs tend to have low earnings and are more likely to live in low-income families. They also face greater risk of unemployment and enjoy fewer employer- or government-sponsored benefits. Adding fuel to these concerns is the persistence of nonstandard employment among the people who hold these jobs. For example, of the five million Canadians in non-standard jobs in 1999; half remained in such jobs throughout the following two years. Older workers (45 to 69) were particularly susceptible. The potentially negative aspects of non-standard work are mitigated by many individuals choosing selfemployment, or temporary or part-time jobs. Moreover, non-standard work often serves as a gateway to standard employment. For example, some 60% of individuals without jobs in 1999 who were subsequently employed in 2000 or 2001 initially found nonstandard work. And the temporary nature of non-standard work among youth indicates that for this group non-standard work is typically a stepping stone to permanent full-time employment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".