MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021201824 · doi:10.1136/oem-2019-epi.100

O4C.5 Precarious work and precarious lives: an analysis of the association between employment relationships and access to social and health benefits

2019· article· en· W3021201824 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mieke Koehoorn, Robert Macpherson, Chris McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational and Environmental Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualDisability pensionContext (archaeology)Precarious workGerontologyMedicineDisability benefitsDemographyEnvironmental healthSocial securityWork (physics)GeographyPopulationSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Precarious employment relationships impact many facets of society, among them health and health inequities for workers and their families. The objective of the current analyses was to investigate the association between precarious employment and access to social and health employment benefits in the Canadian context. Methods The General Social Survey (GSS) is an annual and national cross-sectional survey administered by Statistics Canada. The GSS2016 focused on social trends in education, work and home conditions to inform policy issues. The association between employment status (regular versus seasonal, term, casual) and access to employment benefits (pension, sick leave, vacation, disability, workers’ compensation, parental leave, supplemental medical, and other) was investigated using multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for socio-demographic (age, sex, education, visible minority, immigrant), occupation and industry, and physical and mental disability characteristics. Results Among those employed at the time of the survey (60.4% of 19 609 respondents), the majority had regular (80.8%) versus precarious seasonal (7.0%), casual (6.9%), or term (5.3%) employment. Twenty-eight percent of precarious workers reported no employment benefits compared to 6% of regular workers (ORadj=4.99, 95% CI 3.53, 7.05). By type of benefit, the greatest disparity between precarious employment and no benefits was reported for disability insurance (ORadj=2.45 95% CI 1.81, 3.32) and supplemental medical benefits (ORadj=2.54 95% CI 1.90, 3.38), while the least disparity was reported for workers’ compensation benefits (ORadj=1.46 95% CI 1.11, 1.92). Discussion Precarious work may equate to precarious living for a significant number of workers without pension, disability, sick leave, family or medical employment benefits. The impact of the observed disparity in employment benefits for workers with regular versus precarious attachment to the labour market warrants longer-term investigation, but the findings suggest that precarious work could be a significant social determinant of health.

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 score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207