LABOUR RELATIONS: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND SPECIALIZATION IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING UNIVERSITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to share with readers from French, German and Spanish speaking countries, as well as other intellectuals from such countries as Italy and Brazil, the importance of universities in English-speaking countries (the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and the United States) for the study and research in Labour Relations, and that of Germany regarding Social Policy. Nevertheless, we have detected a scarce number of experts in the History of Labour Relations and the History of Social Policy in both English-speaking countries and Germany. It is precisely this doctrinal gap what has led to the publication of this journal, the Revista Crítica de Historia de las Relaciones Laborales y de la Política Social, from which we intend to promote research on the historical dimension (our aim, somewhat flexible, is to publish research which focuses on studies and analysis completed by 1999) of both areas of expertise, Labour Relations and Social Policy. This is not only the objective of the founders of this periodical but also, particularly, mine as its Associate Editor. Significant characters from the origins of both subject areas in Europe and the so-called seven founding fathers of Labour Relations in Spain will appear in the pages below. This article will almost exclusively provide a doctrinal introduction, which will not be either institutional or contract-focused, in the timeframe of the XIXth and first half of the XXth centuries. The reader will find significant characters, among whom the most relevant may be Gustav Schmoller, the founder and first Chairman of the Verein für Socialpolitik. The charts included at the end of the article offer an overview of some of the experts in Labour Relations from prestigious universities in Australia, the United States and Canada (Quebec has been added but further attention will be paid to this Canadian province on some other occasion). In the second part of this article, Social Policy university experts charts will be published and doctrinal information will be extended with the study of those authors who helped create this discipline in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, England and Scotland.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".