Search

Crowdwork is often characterised by low incomes and insecure employment conditions. Nevertheless, the business models of crowdwork platforms require a sufficiently large number of crowdworkers. Like other markets, the market for crowdwork is socially constituted, and platform providers try to influence market activities by creating certain images of crowdwork. For platform providers, it is crucial to build a narrative that makes working on the platform attractive to potential crowdworkers. This article examines how platforms present themselves to crowdworkers. Therefore, the self-representation of German-language platforms is analysed. It can be shown that the narratives used and the stories told about crowdwork differ from type to type. Only some of the platforms describe crowdwork as a form of 'real' employment. These platforms obviously address (solo-) self-employed people, particularly those working in the IT sector or the creative industries. But even these platforms mainly describe crowdwork as an additional source of income. Especially when earning potential is low, a lot of platforms try to point out other advantages of crowdwork. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is an honor and pleasure to have my essay discussed by such accomplished and thoughtful colleagues, from whom I continue to learn so much. In setting out to respond to their reflections, I would like to begin by stressing my original essay's tremendous debt to the work of scholars, intellectuals, and political actors who have approached histories of U.S. power in the world from a critical stance, as the piece's long footnotes—about which I have received much good-natured ribbing—were crafted to highlight. Despite occasional efforts to deny or minimize this rich, complicated intellectual history, there is a vibrant, long-standing conversation here—a conversation that is, in fact, my essay's main subject and theme, and without which it simply could not exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the question of platform workers' demands and perceived challenges regarding their working conditions. Firstly, it examines these demands and challenges in detail. Secondly, it explores whether, despite the atomisation of workers, there are shared demands concerning the regulation of their working conditions. These questions are investigated using both quantitative and qualitative data. The findings reveal that, despite the prevalence of precarious working conditions and an 'objective' need for regulatory measures in the platform economy as highlighted in previous research, only a minority of the workers studied advocate for collective interest representation. In contrast, the majority support the notion of self-responsibility. These findings indicate significant challenges regarding regulation and representation within highly individualised labour in the platform economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study is to examine the dosimetric influence of endorectal balloons (ERB) on rectal sparing in prostate cancer patients with implanted hydrogel rectum spacers treated with dose-escalated or hypofractionated intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT). Methods: Ten patients with localized prostate cancer included in the ProRegPros study and treated at our center were investigated. All patients underwent placement of hydrogel rectum spacers before planning. Two planning CTs (with and without 120 cm3 fluid-filled ERB) were applied for each patient. Dose prescription was set according to the h strategy, with 72 Gray (Gy)/2.4 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 1 cm of the seminal vesicle, and 60 Gy/2 Gy/5× weekly to prostate + 2 cm of the seminal vesicle. Planning with two laterally opposed IMPT beams was performed in both CTs. Rectal dosimetry values including dose-volume statistics and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were compared for both plans (non-ERB plans vs. ERB plans). Results: For ERB plans compared with non-ERB, the reductions were 8.51 ± 5.25 Gy (RBE) (p = 0.000) and 15.76 ± 11.11 Gy (p = 0.001) for the mean and the median rectal doses, respectively. No significant reductions in rectal volumes were found after high dose levels. The use of ERB resulted in significant reduction in rectal volume after receiving 50 Gy (RBE), 40 Gy (RBE), 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), and 10 Gy (RBE) with p values of 0.034, 0.008, 0.003, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively. No differences between ERB and non-ERB plans for the anterior rectum were observed. ERB reduced posterior rectal volumes in patients who received 30 Gy (RBE), 20 Gy (RBE), or 10 Gy (RBE), with p values of 0.019, 0.003, and 0.001, respectively. According to the NTCP models, no significant reductions were observed in mean or median rectal toxicity (late rectal bleeding ≥ 2, necrosis or stenosis, and late rectal toxicity ≥ 3) when using the ERB. Conclusion: ERB reduced rectal volumes exposed to intermediate or low dose levels. However, no significant reduction in rectal volume was observed in patients receiving high or intermediate doses. There was no benefit and also no disadvantage associated with the use of ERB for late rectal toxicity, according to available NTCP models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]