What Is Best for Workers? The Implications of Workplace and Human Resource Management Practices Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on a 2003–2004 random household telephone survey of 750 Canadian workers, I explore the implications of work and human resource (HR) practices for six aspects of the quality of working life. I find “traditional” HR practices, associated with the bureaucratic model predominant after World War II and with union representation, to have strong positive implications for workers. Participative workplace practices also have strong positive implications, although these are largely limited to information sharing in the union sector. The actual organization of work (e.g., teams), contingent pay, and “new” HR practices, associated with the “new” HRM of the 1980s, all make little difference. Comparison of these findings with those from a comparable 1998 survey of 508 Canadian workers and a parallel 2003 survey of 450 English workers suggest, however, that the implications of work and HR practices may be historically and institutionally contingent and thus should be interpreted using a historical/institutional perspective.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".