ILLUSTRATIONS OF EXTENDED WORKING LIVES: WHAT INSIGHTS DO THE CONCEPTS OF EXCLUSION AND PRECARITY OFFER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amanda Grenier will act as the discussant for the set of papers in this symposia session, bridging insights from European research with North American perspectives. Situated as an attempt to bridge research findings with a larger critical practice of theory-building theory, she will explore what the concepts of exclusion and precarity offer our interpretations of these papers, as well as how the findings of each contribute to the state of knowledge on exclusion and precarity. She will begin with a brief clarification of the definitions and conceptual boundaries of social exclusion and precarity carried out in Europe and North America and situate key findings of the papers as an effort to theorize older workers lives in contemporary conditions. For example, the well-known concept and domains of social exclusion can be considered to offer ways of understanding processes of exclusion at the mezzo level, as exercised through policies, practices, and/or place. Illustrations from the papers will be linked with existing work on exclusion. She will then draw attention to the concept of precarity as a lens of analysis to connect the micro-level vulnerabilities experienced in the working lives of older people with the shifting social and state structures that form the backdrop for older people’s lives (and the systems within which European research is carried out). Specific examples will be drawn from the set of papers, and a moderated question and answer period will follow.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".