Generational differences in work values: Evidence from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Extract] We compare the work values of three generational cohorts -- Baby Boomers (born 1945-1964), Generation Xers (born 1965-1979), and Millennials (born in 1980 or later) -- using two samples of working professionals. The two samples were collected in 2002 (N = 1,139) and 2011 (N = 2,707) respectively, using the Lyons Work Value Survey (LWVS). The patterns of intergenerational differences observed within the two samples were examined to assess whether such differences appear to be stable over time. Six work values demonstrated similar patterns of inter-generational mean differences in 2002 and 2011: benefits, supportive supervision, advancement, prestige, co-workers and fun. Another four work values differed significantly among the generations in both samples, but showed differences in the patterns of mean differences: hours of work, balance, challenge, salary, using one’s abilities, and authority. The mean scores for majority of the 19 work value items were lower for the three generational cohorts in 2011 than in 2002: Baby Boomers had lower mean scores on 12 of the items in 2011 relative to 2002; Generation Xers had lower scores on 18 items and Millennials had lower scores on 11 items. These findings provide evidence of stability in inter-generational differences on some work values, while other differences appear to be changing in nature as the various generations move through their life-cycle stages.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".