Bibliographic record
Abstract
The approaching merger between the Canadian Auto Workers (caw) and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers (cep) will create the largest private sector union in Canada with over 300,000 members employed in 22 sectors of the economy. As such, it has the potential to profoundly affect the political direction of both the labour movement in this country and ultimately the political future of Canada. Accordingly, these things pose the immediate and unanswered question of what the political direction of the new union will be. This in turn brings into focus the deafening silence within the caw concerning this question and precisely how it will be answered. The only thing that is known for certain is that the question will be addressed by the delegates to the founding convention of the new union, expected to take place next summer. That said, there are a number of related and as yet unanswered questions. Will the delegates be presented with a political policy paper formulated in advance by staff representatives which sets out the political direction of the new mega union and then be expected to rubber stamp it? We just do not know. Or will there be a genuinely democratic and wide open debate where different political positions will be presented and chosen from? Again we just do not know and quite reprehensibly no one is giving the membership of both organizations any clue. From a historical perspective, both the silence surrounding the question of the political direction of the new union and the lack of forthright explanation of how it will be answered should really come as no surprise. The silence must be viewed as symptomatic of the lack of democracy intrinsic to the caw at national level in particular and to the fact that the question of the new union’s political direction is very awkward for both unions within the context of the
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 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.065 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".