Time-Based Stress and Procedural Justice: Can Transparency Mitigate the Effects of Algorithmic Compensation in Gig Work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gig economy has led to a new management style, using algorithms to automate managerial decisions. Algorithmic management has aroused the interest of researchers, particularly regarding the prevalence of precarious working conditions and the health issues related to gig work. Despite algorithmically driven remuneration mechanisms' influence on work conditions, few studies have focused on the compensation dimension of algorithmic management. We investigate the effects of algorithmic compensation on gig workers in relation to perceptions of procedural justice and time-based stress, two important predictors of work-related health problems. Also, this study examines the moderating effect of algorithmic transparency in these relationships. Survey data were collected from 962 gig workers via a research panel. The results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that the degree of exposure to algorithmic compensation is positively related to time-based stress. However, contrary to our expectations, algorithmic compensation is also positively associated with procedural justice perceptions and our results indicate that this relation is enhanced at higher levels of perceived algorithmic transparency. Furthermore, transparency does not play a role in the relationship between algorithmic compensation and time-based stress. These findings suggest that perceived algorithmic transparency makes algorithmic compensation even fairer but does not appear to make it less stressful.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".