MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899391006 · doi:10.29173/cjfy29352

“It was a Meaningless Job”: Exploring Youth Post-Secondary Students’ Employment in the Fast Food Industry

2018· article· en· W2899391006 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Woodhall‐Melnik

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)PrestigeMeaning (existential)PerceptionPrecarious workPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast food work is often described as low-skilled, alienating, standardized, and highly routinized. The fast food industry employs a disproportionately large number of youth post-secondary students who work on a temporary basis and do so part-time or during school breaks to earn money toward educational and living expenses. To date, little is known about post-secondary student fast food workers’ perceptions of their employment. Data from interviews with 32 post-secondary student fast food workers were analyzed. The student workers viewed their jobs as unimportant and low-skilled; however, as students, they were not seeking work that provided opportunities for creativity and meaning, rather, they emphasized the temporary nature of their work and described the inherent stigma and lack of prestige associated with long-term employment in the fast food industry. The students were critical of longer-term workers and animosity between student and non-student workers was expressed. These findings suggest that identity management theories, such as Ashforth and Kreiner’s dirty work, may be better suited to understanding students’ participation in fast food work than traditional Marxist frameworks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la JeunesseSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207