Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a society in which stable employment remains the reference, one might presume that an insecure job situation would represent a threat to a person's well-being. In this qualitative empirical research based on the narrative method, the authors documented the career paths of 22 men and 30 women. Their goal was to understand how intermittent work is experienced by people and how it affects life and perceived health. At the time the authors met with them, the intermittent workers had no continuous employment ties with an employer and 60 percent of them had worked, off and on, for six months or more during the year preceding the interview. The people interviewed considered themselves to be available and able to work. Almost a third of them had once held a stable full-time job for many years. The results confirmed the importance of paid work and the central role that it plays in terms of social recognition and self-esteem. The participants assigned great value to having status as workers and to being integrated into a workplace on a regular basis. Some of these intermittent workers said that their poor working conditions and the investment required by the constant search for work as well as the repeated adaptation to a new working environment decreased their motivation at work, eventually causing them to distance themselves from the paid labour market. Others, however, are increasingly willing to accept compromises in order to secure a stable position in the labour market. They concede that this puts them in conflict with their own values in terms of what work means to them and they have difficulty accepting this contradiction. The effects of intermittent work on well-being are as damaging as those of unemployment due to a range of factors that are not restricted to the financial difficulties it creates. When employment fails to allow an individual to achieve self-fulfilment, develop his or her capacities and enter into relationships with others, it becomes, in some respects, `non-work'.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".