MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036941180

Different strokes for differents folks : examining the effects of computerization on Canadian workers

2008· other· en· W7036941180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Science Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMerge (version control)Function (biology)Tacit knowledgeSoftwareProcess (computing)Service (business)Computer technology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computerization (the diffusion of a combination of hardware and software) has accelerated in the last 30 years due to advances in electronic technologies, the advent of the microprocessor and the tremendous development of the software industry. The process of codification has intensified and routine tasks have tended to disappear, changing the architecture of jobs and, therefore, the structure of employment. A number of occupations have become increasingly associated with the computer, and these jobs require highly skilled workers. Using a production function framework, we found that computerization is not labour-saving but is instead labour-using. Despite this general trend, important inter-industrial differences prevail in the association of skills patterns with the computer. By transforming the structure of jobs, the computer has changed the skills requirements: the knowledge, management and data category of workers is closely associated with the use of computers while for good workers the relationship is a substitutive one due to expert systems software. The computer because of the highly tacit nature of the tasks does not affect the service category of workers. Though the uniqueness of the computer revolution should not be exaggerated, the computer has certainly acted as a catalyst given its pervasiveness and its capacity to merge with other technologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)Same topicPolitical Science Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207