What Is Best for Workers? The Implications of Workplace and Human Resource Management Practices Revisited
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.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it