The Precarity Penalty: How Insecure Employment Disadvantages Workers and Their Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This paper examines the social and economic effects of precarious employment in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton area. The analysis is based on data from two surveys conducted in 2011 and in 2014 by the Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario (PEPSO) research group. The survey findings paint a picture of how low earnings and economic uncertainty translate into delayed formation of relationships, lower marriage rates for workers under the age of 35, and fewer households with children. They also suggest that workers in precarious employment are more likely to experience social isolation. These findings suggest that the Precarity Penalty is not limited to economic outcomes from employment but also includes disadvantages in establishing healthy households and being engaged in one's community. Workers in secure employment enjoy better economic outcomes from employment that provide the basis for better household wellbeing and increased social integration. While much has been made in recent years of the unequal distribution of income, the PEPSO study also points to the unequal distribution of many of the non-financial aspects of life that people value including companionship, having a family and having friends.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".