Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contractual choice offers one vision of autonomy for workers. But contractual choice is a narrow and manipulable conception of choice. Contractual choices often conflict with other kinds of choice, such as democratic choices and life choices. This commentary responds to the Future of Work in the Age of Automation and AI Symposium by drawing out the promise and perils of the continuing contractualization of work. This contractualization is newly catalyzed by gig economy platforms, preference-manipulating gamification and AI-powered surveillance and management techniques. Digital piece work is dissolving toward tailored tasks, contractually regulated down to each moment of human life. As these trends continue, will workers be able to exercise robust contractual choice over their legal relationships, to achieve a welfare-enhancing form of autonomy? Or will they tap "I agree" with a fatigued, fated acquiescence that is then taken as legal and moral sanction for whatever ensues?
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".