What Happens When the Gig Is Up? The Relationship Between Gig Work Histories and Future Career Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite the increasing popularity of gig work, often performed via online marketplaces and platforms, relatively little is known about how such work experiences may influence jobseekers’ future career trajectories. We explore the potential employment signals associated with gig work histories to gain some preliminary understanding of the mechanisms accounting for these signals. We carry out two survey experiments that simulate the hiring decisions of fictitious jobseekers with gig work histories to examine the labour market signals associated with gig work and the extent to which gig work experiences are (more) less preferred to standard employment histories. The findings of Study 1 reveal that for lower skilled jobs (i.e., the delivery driver), gig work experience is not perceived as inferior, nor does it impede employment prospects in the traditional labour market. However, for jobs requiring higher levels of education and/or skill (i.e., the retail manager and the graphic designer), a candidate with standard employment plus a gig work side‐hustle is perceived qualitatively the same, but those with only gig work experience, even that which makes use of similar skillsets, are perceived as less desirable. Furthermore, we find that perceptions of lower human capital and a negative signal mediate the relationship between gig work history and the decision to hire the fictitious candidate. In Study 2, added as a replication and extension of Study 1, we found that the lower skilled job was perceived more negatively when the candidate had only gig work experience, whereas higher skilled jobs performed in the gig economy were associated with perceptions of lower human capital. We discuss the implications of the differences in perceptions of gig work for research, practice and society in general.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".