MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W883824673

The Meaning of Work among Nonstandard Workers: A Multifaceted Reality/Le Sens Du Travail Chez Des Travailleurs Atypiques: Une Réalité Aux Multiples Facettes

2013· article· fr· W883824673 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Bujold, Geneviève Fournier, Lise Lachance

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualMeaning (existential)PhenomenonSociologyWork (physics)Term (time)PsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The changes that have occurred in the work world and their ensuing consequences have been one of the most socially important themes in the scientific on work. The career trajectories of many workers are no longer linear, predictable, and long-term in that they now take place in a rapidly evolving global economy that induces changes and turbulence in work environments and organizations (Herr, as cited by Burnett, 2010). At the individual level, these changes are expressed through, among other things, the emergence of nonstandard work.Without attempting to achieve a uniformity that would partially obscure the nature of nonstandard work, it is worthwhile to clarify the meaning at- tributed to this term. Tucker (2002) reported that the notion of nonstandard work designates a part-time, nonpermanent job, but that definitions vary from one country to another. The term peripheral workers was used in reference to people employment is contingent, free-lance, temporary, external, part-time, and casual (Savickas et al., 2009, p. 241). As Dupuis and McLaren (2006) observed, the fact that workers can hold more than one job at a time can complicate the situation. By combining different analysis perspectives, Fournier, Bourassa, and Beji (2003) associated nonstandard work with employment whose length was limited or uncertain and whose status was either poorly or not at all defined. This phenomenon is sizable, as noted by Goguel d'allondans (2005), who, in his reflections on the metamorphosis of the work world, evoked the breaking up of the social body into three categories, namely employees with stable jobs, those with precarious jobs, and those excluded from the labour market.Echoing ideas put forward by Richardson (1993), who underlined the importance of studying the reality of work in people's lives, Blustein (2006) stated that there has been a notable lack of attention to the inner motivations, personal constructions, and the way in which people make meaning of working in the literature (p. 66), and suggested that, if we are to understand this reality, it is imperative to examine the situations of people who have little or no control over the work-related choices they make. Accordingly, we believe it is important to comprehend the meaning that nonstandard workers attribute to work, considering the difficulty they have in keeping their jobs.The exploratory study presented here was part of a larger research program focusing on career trajectories characterized by unstable employment (Bujold & Fournier, 2008; Fournier & Bujold, 2005; Fournier, Lachance, & Bujold, 2009). In line with Blustein's (2006) suggestion, our study set out to determine the meaning of work in the eyes of workers who had been in a nonstandard work situation for at least three years. We examined this meaning by looking at four aspects: the significance the workers attributed to work, work's absolute and relative centrality for them, their expectations of it, and their representation of their personal commitment to work. This article presents the review as it applies to the variables, methodology, and results of our study.UTE RATURE REVIEWThe four aspects mentioned above are examined at the conceptual and empirical levels with regard to work in general and to nonstandard work in particular. Furthermore, work by Mercure and Vultur (2010), which deals with both of these two categories, will be discussed at the end of this section.SignificanceBased on her examination of various studies on the subject, Morin (2004) drew out six characteristics of significant work. Significant work (a) is useful, (b) is morally justifiable, (c) allows people to benefit from their accomplishments, (d) allows individuals to carry out socially acknowledged tasks, (e) is self-sufficient, and (f) permits the establishment of gratifying relationships with one's colleagues. The latter two characteristics were also mentioned by Blustein (2006), who spoke more of the functions of work than of its significance. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.055
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207