Third places in precarious workers’ lives: a scoping review of associated social experiences and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contemporary increase in precarious employment has shaped lives marked by employment, economic, and social instability for many workers. While research has demonstrated deleterious physical and mental implications of precarious work, less attention has been paid to social implications, including heightened risk for social isolation. Using a 5-step scoping review process, this paper investigates what is known about the types and characteristics of physical and virtual ‘third places’ outside of home and work that help maintain social connectedness and ameliorate social isolation in the lives of precarious workers. Descriptive and thematic analysis of 24 interdisciplinary articles revealed that precarious workers navigating conditions marked by spatial exclusion enact collective agency to create and sustain alternative ‘third places’ that align with the conditions of precarious lives. Although places created could be associated with social risks, obligations, and exclusions, they were also mobilised to address diverse social needs, including: a sense of belonging to a collective of ‘similar’ others; temporary respite from the conditions of precarity; assertion of presence and visibility; and exchange of diverse resources and forms of care. These results inform critical reflections on the kinds of spaces that can serve as ‘third places’ within societies marked by growing precarity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".