MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566103808 · doi:10.3138/9781442678279

Partisanship, Globalization, and Canadian Labour Market Policy: Four Provinces in Comparative Perspective

2006· book· en· W1566103808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodney Haddow, Thomas R. Klassen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityGlobalizationContext (archaeology)Optimal distinctiveness theoryPoliticsDominance (genetics)Welfare stateHegemonyPolitical sciencePolitical economyEconomicsMarket economyLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acknowledgments Part 1: Context * Partisanship, Globalization, and Political-Economic Institutions in Labour Market Policy-Making * Welfare State, Production Regime, and Party System in Four Canadian Provinces * Historical and Federal Context of Canadian Labour Market Policy Part 2: Case Studies * Ontario: Policy Continuity amid Institutional Uncertainty * Quebec: Legacies of Political-Economic Distinctiveness * British Columbia: Right Hegemony in a Polarized Liberal Polity * Alberta: One-Party Dominance and Neo-liberalism * Social Assistance and Employment: An Anomaly? Part 3: Reflection * A Perspective from Abroad: Coordinative Institutions and Labour Market Reform in Germany STEFFEN SCHNEIDER * Conclusion: Stepping Back and Looking Forward Appendix: Criteria for Rating Labour Market Policy Change Notes Index

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.020
Science and technology studies0.0160.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207