“The living need care”: Experiences of bereaved workers in precarious employment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bereavement scholarship predominantly examines psychological aspects of grief, which neglects the role of social, economic, and political factors that shape the space to accommodate these experiences. Responding to calls for enhancing bereavement care, this research explores bereavement accommodation for workers in precarious employment in Ontario, Canada. Drawing on critical qualitative research and feminist ethics, this study employed in-depth interviews to generate knowledge on the everyday experiences of bereaved workers in precarious employment. Participants expressed they were uninformed and unprepared for grief and practical bereavement labor, and that navigating the current context created tension, stress, exhaustion, isolation, and stigma. We argue the systemic neglect of bereavement is driven by socio-political forces that devalue relationality, stigmatize emotions, and render bereavement an individual responsibility. This research informs broad recommendations, including enhancing grief literacy, establishing safeguards for precarious workers, and creating more responsive care pathways and strategies for addressing individual and collective grief.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".