Precarious work, "harmonizing down" and economic anxiety: Implications for citizenship and society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines precarious work, its historical origins and certain social consequences.I use the 2015 Canadian Election Study to analyze the relationship between work-related insecurity and economic anxiety with voting, non-voting political behaviour and attitudes toward equityseeking groups.I propose a theory of "harmonizing down", in which workers who were once able to access the benefits and status of the standard employment relationship have generally seen their opportunities for stable and secure work decline.This has resulted in economic anxiety for most workers.Results were mixed, suggesting that broad generalizations around economic anxiety are problematic.Insecurity and anxiety may reduce the likelihood of voting but may increase non-voting participation.Some aspects of insecurity and anxiety were related to negative attitudes toward equity-seeking groups, but the relationship is not clear.Gender and political party identity influence these attitudes.iii Table 19: Mean "temperatures" of attitudes toward groups (web mode) n Mean "temperature" How do you feel about Canada?3750 85.5087 How do you feel about Muslims (living here)?3581 54.5739 How do you feel about the United States?3705 62.5664 How do you feel about federal politicians in general?3717 43.1245How do you feel about Aboriginal peoples?3599 68.1172How do you feel about gays and lesbians?3591 66.8679 How do you feel about feminists?3594 58.8545How do you feel about Francophones?3623 69.1859How do you feel about Anglophones 3637 77.5575How do you feel about racial minorities?3596 67.6659How do you feel about immigrants?3618 64.1618How do you feel about Quebec?3679 59.3250 Table 20: Mean "temperatures" of attitudes toward groups (phone mode) n Mean "temperature" How do you feel about Canada?2885 91.08 How do you feel about Muslims (living here)?2702 73.03How do you feel about the United States?2833 68.60 How do you feel about federal politicians in general?2835 55.01 How do you feel about Aboriginal peoples?2726 79.24 How do you feel about gays and lesbians?2731 80.78 How do you feel about feminists?2764 75.96How do you feel about Francophones?518 80.79 How do you feel about Anglophones 2254 79.39 How do you feel about racial minorities?2740 80.80 How do you feel about immigrants?2762 78.72 How do you feel about Quebec?2771 73.53
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".