MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969910081 · doi:10.1177/0950017019865877

Harmonic Dissonance: Coping with Employment Precarity among Professional Musicians in St John’s, Canada

2019· article· en· W2969910081 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David Chafe, Lisa Kaida

Bibliographic record

VenueWork Employment and Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMemorial University of NewfoundlandNewfoundland and Labrador Arts Council
KeywordsCognitive dissonanceJob insecurityCoping (psychology)PrecarityPrecarious workSociologyPopulationPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyWork (physics)Gender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precarious employment literature has addressed a myriad of occupations increasingly characterized by employment uncertainty and reduced commitment between workers and employers due to short-term contracts and self-employment, with particular attention given to creative industries and the gig economy in recent years. The authors argue that research on creative industries also requires consideration of the role of place in the experience of employment insecurity and career commitment. This article focuses on self-employed musicians in the mid-sized city of St John’s, Canada. Interviews with 54 musicians draw attention to coping strategies for long periods of low pay and employment insecurity. These strategies include downplaying competition and conflict, acquiring higher education and changing career. It is argued that population size and location of the community where work is based have implications on such coping strategies and on career longevity.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWork Employment and SocietySame topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207