Learning among lower-wage and at-risk workers: The role of personal,organizational, and social resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower-wage workers generally report limited access to formal learning opportunities. This paper investigates factors that influence learning among lower-wage workers. Using focus groups and a survey, it examines the role of demographics, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancies related to learning new skills, access to resources, and the moderating role of social capital. Despite their high levels of self-efficacy, expectancies, and motivation to learn, lowerwage workers report a low incidence of training, with only 13% receiving formal training from their employers and only 8% participating in formal training on their own initiative. Although social capital appears to increase the likelihood of participating in learning activities, lower-wage workers tend to report low levels of social capital. These results suggest that lower-wage workers would participate more in formal learning activities if they had better access to learning opportunities and if they had higher levels of social capital. Résumé Les petits salariés rapportent généralement avoir peu d’occasions de participer à des activités de formation. Cet article analyse les facteurs influençant l’apprentissage chez les petits salariés. À partir de groupes de discussion et d’un sondage, il s’attarde au rôle des facteurs démographiques, de l’autoefficacité et des attentes liées à l’apprentissage de nouvelles compétence et à l’accessibilité des ressources, et au rôle modérateur du capital social. Malgré leur haut degré d’autoefficacité, leurs attentes et leur motivation à apprendre, peu de formation est offerte aux petits salariés : seulement 13 p. 100 d’entre eux reçoivent de la formation formelle de leur employeur et 8 p. 100 participent à une formation de leur propre initiative. Bien que le capital social semble augmenter la probabilité de participation à des activités d’apprentissage, les petits salariés n’ont généralement pas un niveau élevé de capital social. Ces résultats laissent croire que les petits salariés participeraient davantage à des activités d’apprentissage formel si l’accessibilité à ces formations était facilitée et s’ils possédaient un niveau de capital social plus élevé.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".