Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many health care workplaces are adopting more cooperative labour-management relations, spurred in part by sweeping changes in the economic environment that have occurred over the last decade. Labour-management cooperation is seen as essential if health care organizations are to achieve their valued performance objectives. Joint labour-management committees (LMCs) have been adopted in many health care workplaces as a means of achieving better industrial relations. Using data from a sample of Canadian union leaders in the health care sector, this paper examines the impact of labour-management forums and labour climate on employee and organizational outcomes. Research results suggest that labour climate is less important in predicting workplace performance (and change in workplace performance) than is the number of LMCs in operation. However, labour climate is found to be at least as important in predicting union member satisfaction (and change in member satisfaction) as is the wide adoption of LMCs in operation. These findings are consistent with the notion that the greater use of LMCs is associated with augmented workplace performance (and a positive change in workplace performance), notwithstanding the contribution of the labour climate in the workplace.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".