MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244882484 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/d2e7u

Insecure People in Insecure Places: The Influence of Regional Unemployment on Workers’ Reactions to the Threat of Job Loss

2017· preprint· en· W4244882484 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marisa Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentMental healthJob insecurityJob lossPsychologyPerceptionMultilevel modelDemographic economicsSocial psychologyEconomicsWork (physics)Economic growthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social comparison theory predicts that unemployment should be less distressing when the experience is widely shared, but does this prediction extend beyond the unemployed to those who are at risk of job loss? Research demonstrates a link between aggregate unemployment and employed individuals’ perceptions of job insecurity; however, less is known about whether the stress associated with these perceptions is shaped by others’ unemployment experiences. We analyze a nationally representative sample of Canadian workers (Canadian Work, Stress, and Health study; N = 3,900) linked to census data and test whether regional unemployment influences the mental health consequences of job insecurity. Multilevel analyses provide more support for the social norm of insecurity hypothesis over the amplified threat hypothesis: the health penalties of job insecurity are weaker for individuals in high-unemployment regions. This contingency is partially explained by the ability of insecure workers in poor labor market contexts to retain psychological resources important for protecting mental health

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→