Precarity as the New Reality? Millennials’ Representation in the Changing Workplaces Review Policy Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millennials, comprising the majority of the Canadian labour market, have come of age in a time of shrinking safety nets and precarious work. The Changing Workplaces Review (CWR) in Ontario was commissioned to explore how work conditions have shifted in line with globalization, neoliberalism, labour market restructuring, and the gig economy. The final report offered a golden opportunity to suggest legislative adjustments to employment standard and labour relation legislation in a way that strengthened workplace and employment conditions for millennials. Considering the unique barriers facing this generation, this paper proposes a scale for categorizing the type of representation this group received within the consultation phase of the policy process of the review. Findings demonstrate that the most salient aspects of precarious work which specifically target millennials received a small, but substantive representation from community groups, labour unions, and other allies within community consultations. However, our analysis revealed that the substantive representation was not reflected in either the final report or in the ensuing legislation. We conclude that a small clustering of substantive representation, while an important contribution to the public debate, can be overlooked by policy makers, especially when concerns run counter to the dominant framing of the group and issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.192 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".