Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the structure of the economy in advanced economies has shifted from one primarily based on manufacturing to one based on services, the labor market has also shifted toward greater levels of flexibility. This flexibility is expressed in a number of ways. First, labor market flexibility is embedded in government policy, and employment regulation and standards that govern how labor markets operate. Second, organizational practices such as project‐based work, teamwork, teleworking, homework, and nonstandard scheduling have become more widespread. Third, there has been an increase in nonstandard work, including self‐employment and part‐time, casual, contract, and temporary labor. At the firm level, this is viewed as advantageous as it allows firms to respond more easily to changing market conditions, as well as reducing their overhead costs. While there may be some benefits to individuals through the use of these various arrangements, many forms of flexibility in the labor market impose greater risks, as these forms of work are often precarious and uncertain. These risks are often felt unevenly across geographic space, industrial sectors, and gender, ethnicity, class, and immigration/citizenship statuses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".