MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agency-Led Flexibility and Insecurity in Toronto’s Home Care

2020· book-chapter· en· W4205660748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia J. Cranford

Bibliographic record

VenueCornell University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualFlexibility (engineering)Agency (philosophy)BusinessPublic relationsJob insecurityLabour economicsPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter assesses the Toronto home care program. Home care was distinct from both the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and the Direct Funding Program (DF) in that agencies were the direct employers. But these agencies did little to challenge the insecurity of individualized employment relationships and only contingently responded to the clients who requested flexibility. Clients' willingness to complain was shaped by their age, ability, and class. Agencies indulged clients' requests to switch a worker if clients couched them in relational terms and if the agency was able to produce a new worker when the client needed one; yet the latter was contingent on workers' availability, which was limited by casual employment contracts. Agencies did not assist clients or workers in navigating tensions at the intimate level. Instead, they chose to overlook a precarious economy of favors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCornell University Press eBooksSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207