MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152936555 · doi:10.18740/s4fs4b

The Excluded, the Vulnerable and the Reintegrated in a Neoliberal Era: Qualitative Dimensions of the Unemployment Experience.

2009· article· en· W2152936555 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Susan Silver, John Shields, Sue Wilson, Antonie Scholtz

Bibliographic record

VenueSocialist studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnemploymentRestructuringVulnerability (computing)Sample (material)Labour economicsQualitative researchJob lossEconomicsStructural unemploymentSociologyDemographic economicsEconomic growthSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this qualitative study, we examine the pathways to vulnerability created by structural unemployment. We focus on a sample of workers often neglected in unemployment studies, namely full-time workers who have held steady employment before job loss. Our sample consists of 29 Canadian workers, restructured from full-time employment and followed for two years. By investigating what happens to these workers we are able to gain valuable insight into the “lived experience” of structural job loss. Their stories describe pathways that lead to re-integration, but also expose pathways that result in heightened states of vulnerability and exclusion from the labour market. The paper concludes with a number of policy suggestions aimed at redressing some of the most negative effects of neoliberal labour market restructuring.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.031
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocialist studiesSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207