MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1557106720 · doi:10.7202/011732ar

Flexible Work Arrangements: Conceptualizations and International Experience edited by Isik Urla Zeytinoglu, The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International, 2002, 298 pp., ISBN 90-411-1947-7.

2005· article· en· W1557106720 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hedva Sarfati

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational lawSociologyHumanitiesPolitical scienceInternational relationsLaw and economicsLawPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible Work Arrangements: Conceptualizations and International Experience edited by Isik Urla Zeytinoglu, The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International, 2002, 298 pp., ISBN 90-411-1947-7.. Un article de la revue Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations (Volume 60, numéro 2, printemps 2005, p. 213-399) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industrielles→Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→