MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810539090 · doi:10.3390/su10072245

Job Loss in a Group of Older Canadian Workers: Challenges in the Sustainable Labour Market Reintegration Process

2018· article· en· W2810539090 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Geneviève Fournier, Hélène Zimmermann, Jonas Masdonati, Christine Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSustainabilityConstruct (python library)UnemploymentPsychological interventionWork (physics)BusinessLabour economicsDemographic economicsPsychologyEconomic growthEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Western countries, the loss of jobs among older workers is a highly worrisome situation, since it can be synonymous with long-term employment precariousness and definitive exclusion from the labour market. This precariousness is occurring while the labour force in these countries is aging, and governments are looking to extend people’s working lives. It is therefore particularly relevant to study different labour market reintegration processes and to understand their sustainability from a psychological perspective. The present article is examining these processes using a longitudinal study over an 18-month period with 61 older Canadian workers. Time 1 and Final Time were documented with semi-structured individual interviews. These data allowed us to qualitatively construct three reintegration processes (blocked, downgrading, and sustainable) that describe a large spectrum of workers’ experiences regarding occupational repositioning. Quantitative analyses likewise suggest moderate statistical links between the reintegration process and changes in subjective variables associated with the relationship to work and identity representations. Altogether, the results underline the importance of returning to the labour market in qualified, decent, sustainable work that allows people to have a decent and meaningful personal life. The results also suggest, in keeping with the psychology of sustainability, that interventions should promote occupational and personal enrichment, both at the individual and organizational levels.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207