MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307244480 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckac129.374

6.J. Workshop: Precarious employment and its impact on social protections in the EU

2022· article· en· W4307244480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderemploymentUnemploymentPrecarious workSocial securityJob securityLabour economicsSick leaveFlexibility (engineering)Affect (linguistics)ProductivityBusinessTemporary workWork (physics)Demographic economicsEconomicsEconomic growthSociologyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The changing nature of work, resulting from technology, globalization, shifts in demographics, and other economic and political forces, poses many potential problems for workers, employers, and society today and for the foreseeable future. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the importance of social protection systems, e.g. income security for injured or sick-listed workers. The pace of work is increasing, driven by increasing productivity demands and greater use of technology. The nature of employer-employee relationships is also changing rapidly, best exemplified by increases in what has been termed “nonstandard employment arrangements”, such as gig economy work and short-term contracts. However, what is viewed as greater employment flexibility by employers may represent a more precarious job for workers, as compared to pay, benefits and security for those with long-term employment arrangements. Nonstandard employment is typically shorter in duration, leading to more jobs over a lifetime, with the potential for exposure to multiple and simultaneous risks, some of them new, combined with the possibility of more time spent in periods of unemployment or underemployment. Precarious employment has been linked to adverse effects on worker health and well-being. Although these employment arrangements can affect workers of all education and income levels, they disproportionately affect workers in lower socioeconomic strata. One of the major consequences of nonstandard employment arrangements is the potential loss of social protections, including social security, yet this has not been well addressed. Our workshop focuses on the changing work life across different EU member states and beyond, examining different types of precarious employment and their effects on health and social security benefits. Prof. Ellen MacEachen will focus on how laws, policies and collective agreements in six EU countries, New Zealand and Canada protect the health of low wage and digital platform workers. She will address occupational and public health interventions for these workers in light of health risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Solveig Osborg Ose will focus on precarious work, sickness absence and risk sharing between employers, employees and social insurance in nine north-western EU countries. Moreover, she will discuss the adaptation of social protection systems to cover all types of employment to avoid increasing inequalities. Two experts Dr. Anita Tisch and Prof. Angelique de Rijk will reflect on the findings and discuss with the presenters and the audience the challenges, policies and practices needed towards employment and occupational safety and health social protections of precarious workers. Key messages • Precarious employment has been linked to adverse effects on worker health and well-being. Workers in lower socioeconomic strata are disproportionately affected. • A major consequences of nonstandard employment arrangements is the potential loss of social protections, including social security, yet this has to be addressed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public Health→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→