‘Bad’ Jobs in a ‘Good’ Sector: Examining the Employment Outcomes of Temporary Work in the Canadian Public Sector
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s public sector has historically provided good jobs, but its increasing reliance on temporary workers has important implications for job quality. We compare temporary and permanent workers in the public sector on three dimensions of job quality (employment security, access to benefits and income trajectories) to assess whether favourable conditions in the public sector are extended to temporary employees, or whether polarization between temporary and permanent workers is the norm. We find provisions related to employment security and access to leave benefits in public sector collective bargains are clearly two-tiered. Drawing on nationally representative panel data, we also find a persistent earnings gap between matched permanent and temporary employees. Further, although temporary public sector workers out-earn their private sector counterparts, the earnings disadvantage relative to matched permanent workers is more pronounced and longer lasting in the public sector. Underlying this difference is greater persistence in temporary employment within the public sector.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it