MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonstandard Employment and Workplace Profitability

2012· article· en· W2901172521 on OpenAlexaffabout
Qian He

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexPopularityLabour economicsEconomicsBusinessDemographic economicsEconometricsPsychologyFinanceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I use longitudinal nationally representative survey data to examine how nonstandard employment, which accounts for about 30 percent of total Canadian employment, is associated with subsequent workplace profitability in the Canadian private sector. To compare the marginal effects of three categories of nonstandard employment, namely non-permanent part-time, permanent part-time, and non-permanent full-time, Nonstandard-employment Elasticity of Profitability (NEP, a measure of the percent change in nonstandard employment to the percent change in profitability of the next year) is calculated. The result revealed that all three categories of nonstandard employment were positively associated with subsequent workplace profitability, with factors that might affect profitability controlled. Remarkably, the magnitudes of these relationships were consistent with the popularity of each category of nonstandard employment within workplaces. Also, I found that this significant positive relationship between nonstandard employment and subsequent profitability was majorly driven by a few industries and smaller workplaces.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207