Peril and Promise in the New World of Work: Implications for Decency and Meaningfulness in Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decent and meaningful work are set apart in management theory and research but are intimately connected. Decent work reflects the minimum standards in working conditions and compensation that allow workers to live healthy and sustainable lives. Meaningful work reflects work's personal and societal significance in an aspirational sense. Today, both are in flux. Massive changes surrounding COVID-19, gig work and alternative work arrangements, artificial intelligence, DEI, platform capitalism, algorithmic management, and myriad other revolutionary developments in the world of work are reshaping workers’ experiences with and interpretations of decency and meaningfulness in work. Given fundamental changes in the work phenomenon, we have reached a critical moment to reflect on what constitutes decent and meaningful work and whether the nature of these constructs has changed. This panel symposium will consider the revolutionary forces shaping the sources of decency and meaningfulness in work and discuss the implications of these forces for theory, research, and practice.
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 | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".