Reconceptualising precarity and agency: new ways forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter synthesises the insights from cross-national collaboration involving researchers from Canada, Finland, South Africa and the UK that explores the vulnerabilities of care workers through qualitative research. The chapter advances the conversation by critically examining how intersectionality, voice and powerlessness intersect to heighten the precarity of care workers, particularly those with migrant status. It also scrutinises the systemic disempowerment faced by care workers within larger health systems. The chapter offers actionable recommendations, including promoting unionisation and legal protections, enhancing the visibility and reputation of care workers and advocating for greater investment in their skills and development. By addressing these key areas, the chapter lays out a research-focused and strategic path forward to empower care workers and improve their working conditions across diverse global contexts.
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 | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.051 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".