Between Proactive and Reactive Coping: How Food Delivery Workers Cope With Algorithmic Management Threats
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how gig workers in the food delivery sector cope with algorithmic management threats. Algorithmic management involves using learning algorithms to manage and control workers in online labour platforms. Although it offers opportunities for platforms, algorithmic management may present threats for workers including anxiety, burnout, and isolation. While focusing on resistance in the context of algoactivism, limited attention has been paid to how workers perceive algorithmic management threats and the emotion-focused and problem-focused coping behaviours they employ to cope with them. Using Q-methodology, the research identified four types of workers displaying unique coping strategies: the Empowered Collectivist fosters resilience through collective meaning-making and emotional support; the Savvy Opportunist leverages technical literacy; the Isolated Denier struggles with opacity and isolation; and the Anxious Conspiracist is marked by over-adapting and conspiracy theorizing. Building on this typology, the study proposes a dynamic coping model in which proactive coping strategies can support a virtuous cycle of positive reappraisal, increased agency, and resilience.In contrast, reactive coping strategies may contribute to a vicious cycle of negative reappraisal, emotional exhaustion, and disengagement. The study refines coping theory in technology mediated work, contributing to a nuanced understanding of algoactivism and redefining worker agency under algorithmic management.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it