MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319039221 · doi:10.1177/09500170221146916

Are All the Stable Jobs Gone? The Transformation of the Worker–Firm Relationship and Trends in Job Tenure Duration and Separations in Canada, 1976–2015

2023· article· en· W4319039221 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xavier St‐Denis, Matissa Hollister

Bibliographic record

VenueWork Employment and Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaSage FoundationRussell Sage Foundation
KeywordsDuration (music)Demographic economicsJob creationLabour economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on flexibilization documents the decline of the standard employment relationships, resulting in greater job insecurity. Consequently, the stability of career trajectories is expected to have decreased. However, existing studies in many countries pose a significant challenge: the available evidence shows no clear downward trend and possibly even an increase in job stability since the 1970s, as measured by trends in job tenure duration or job separations. This article highlights important limitations of such studies and provides novel evidence on the transformation of career trajectories. It is the first to provide evidence of a decrease in average job tenure duration for men in Canada and a decrease in five-year and 10-year retention rates over the four decades between 1976 and 2015, adjusting for sociodemographic shifts unrelated to flexibilization. We also find that average job tenure has increased for women, while their long-term job retention rates declined.

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)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWork Employment and SocietySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207