Just-in-Time Labour: The Case of Networks Providing Home Support Services in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to analyse how the obligation to be available to work when requested by one’s employer manifests itself in the context of network organizations and under a legal regulation of working hours which was forged on the basis of the industrial production model. We conducted two case studies examining the situation of workers in the private externalized segments of home support services networks in Quebec, a Canadian province. We will demonstrate that for these atypical workers, mostly women, the obligation to be available to work without any accompanying compensation in wages is implicit and manifests itself in two ways: through time that is considered to be personal but which is not because it is squeezed into the gaps in fragmented, variable and unpredictable working schedules and through the exclusion, from paid work time, of time spent carrying out work-related tasks. The impact of this obligation is significant in terms of wages and precariousness. Its manifestations derive from both the network-based organization of work – which allows for the imposition of a ‘justin- time’ model of labour management and a reinforcement of the sexual division of labour – and the inadequacy of the legal regulation of working hours with regard to this organizational model.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".