MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W102411382

The Arbitration Profession in Transition: Preliminary Results From a Survey of the National Academy of Arbitrators

2000· article· en· W102411382 on OpenAlex
Michel G Picher, Ronald L. Seeber, David B. Lipsky

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeCommons (Cornell University) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationStatutory lawStatuteCollective bargainingMediationDispute resolutionAlternative dispute resolutionCompulsory arbitrationConciliationLawAgency (philosophy)Labor disputesBusinessPolitical scienceLabor relationsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Excerpt} In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the arbitration and mediation of employment-related disputes. This increase has been part of a larger shift from reliance on litigation and agency resolution of disputes to the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a trend particularly evident in the employment field. Over the course of several decades employees have been granted a long list of rights and protections included in a variety of laws, ranging from antidiscrimination statutes to pension safeguards to statutory attempts to guarantee safer and healthier workplaces. The growing use of arbitration, mediation, and related techniques to resolve statutory claims arising in employment relations is largely the consequence of the high costs and long delays associated with the use of administrative agencies and the court system to resolve disputes arising under these various statutes. The growing use of ADR in employment disputes has occurred both inside and outside collective bargaining. In some union workplaces, the parties attempt to resolve statutory claims using the grievance and arbitration procedures in their collective bargaining agreements. In other union workplaces, many, if not most, statutory claims are handled outside the collective bargaining arena. Employees in many such organizations pursue their statutory claims through the normal channels of agency and judicial resolution. In a minority but growing number of union-management relationships, the parties have created procedures for resolving statutory claims that are separate or "sheltered" from the collective bargaining agreement. The growing use of arbitration and mediation to resolve employment disputes has been especially noteworthy in the nonunion sector. In the United States, as most people know, the proportion of the work force that is unionized has been steadily declining for over 40 years and currently stands at about 14 percent. Although the Canadian labor movement has not suffered as steep a decline as in the United States, a similar trend is apparent there. The growth of employment ADR in the nonunion sector is largely the consequence of employer attempts to avoid the high costs and long delays associated with the use of judicial and administrative means to resolve disputes. Of course, some nonunion employers are also motivated by a desire to provide their employees with fair and equitable dispute resolution procedures.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.212 · 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