Putting access to internet-enabled work in its place: Insights from rural Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with access to internet-enabled work opportunities, encompassing telework and digital work, from within rural communities. These forms of work imply that they are available to workers regardless of geography and provide an avenue for rural workers to overcome the limitations of rural labour markets. I draw on mixed-methods research conducted with 28 workers in rural communities in Atlantic Canada at a time marked by significant migration into the region. Using a cross-sectional questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, I examine which rural workers are involved in the forms of work and investigate the place-based dimensions that enable and restrict their ability to access opportunities while living rurally. The findings reveal that rural workers can access internet-enabled work; however, those most likely to be involved are workers with skills, experience, and professional networks gained in urban areas. The urban advantage was important for new and returning rural residents as well as long-term residents. The results further reveal that access from within rural communities may not equate to overcoming distance, at least not for all rural workers. Opportunities appear to be constrained by provincial and regional boundaries, with new and returning regional residents able to gain work outside of rural Atlantic Canada over long-term residents. The findings raise questions about the employer's role in determining access to rural workers, beyond the decision of working in or outside the workplace, and the stubbornness of distance. This research demonstrates the need to examine place-based mechanisms to better understand who is included and excluded from opportunities. • Access to remote work from rural communities does not equate to overcoming distance. • Rural workers with urban-based employment and networks are more likely to be involved. • Qualified rural workers may still be overlooked by distant employers offering remote work. • Chances to secure remote work outside of rural Atlantic Canada is higher for new residents. • There is a likelihood that rural women are more involved in remote work than rural men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".