MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254534282 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14638986

The Segmentation of Academic Labour

2021· preprint· en· W4254534282 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harald Bauder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationCorporatizationMarket segmentationLabour economicsEconomicsBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceMarketingMarket economyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academia increasingly faces pressures of corporatization and flexibilization. Of particular concern is the segmentation of academic labour into stable tenured or tenure-track professors and “flexible” sessional and adjunct faculty. In this paper, I review evidence of the segmentation of the Canadian academic labour market, examine the conditions that permit segmentation to exist, discuss why academic geographers in both segments comply with a segmented labour market and, finally, propose potential strategies to address the issue of segmentation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0120.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.421 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainIncentives
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Health Workforce Issues→French-language works237,207→