Unequal Upsides? The Status-Based Inequalities in the Relationship Between Schedule Control and Job Pressure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sociologists have long identified job pressure as a central work-related stressor with far-reaching consequences for workers’ well-being, their families, and organizations. However, surprisingly little empirical work examines how schedule control influences job pressure in a longitudinal framework—or the status-based contingencies in the resource functions of schedule control. Drawing on five waves of population-level panel data from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study (2011–2019), I use fixed-effects analyses to examine the relationship between schedule control and job pressure, examining whether schedule control operates differently across occupations (professionals versus non-professionals) and levels of authority in the workplace. My findings help advance the sociological study of work-stress research by resolving competing predictions about the relationship between schedule control and job pressure across status. While others have argued the possibility for schedule control to intensify work-related pressures, I find that schedule control helps reduce job pressure. However, my results reveal that schedule control does not benefit all workers equally: it has unequal upsides for higher status workers. These discoveries sharpen existing knowledge about the resource functions of schedule control and are discussed in light of synthesizing key ideas from the sociology of work, and the stress process and job demands-resources models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it