Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I develop a typology of digital work forms. Moving beyond the numerous conceptualisations of digital work, too focused on virtual work and neglecting material and invisible forms of digital work, I argue that to understand the global, interconnected varieties of digital work, it is necessary to apply a relational perspective that situates different forms of work and their linkages at the centre of the analysis. I propose a typology based on the relation to the process of work digitalisation. Further, I explain the linkages between various forms of digital work through the global exchange of tasks, materials and expertise resources. The typology serves as a heuristic tool for considering the broader implications of digitalisation for work and employment in terms of control and coordination as well as regulation and classification between linked workspaces, which I show using the example of the varieties of digital work needed to enable the use of smartphones. KEYWORDS: Digital work; globalisation; virtual work; digitisation; Total Social Organisation of Labour
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".