Pushing the Envelope: Defining and Fighting for a Living Wage Priority #2: Demand More From the System, Not Less, Despite the Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
company that it would not agree to a roll-over that would break the western pattern. In the countdown to the expiry of the industry agreements on May 1, 2009, the drama surrounding AbitibiBowater’s attempt to refinance debt at the risk of bankruptcy has once again raised the stakes. In a bankruptcy-driven restructuring, should the union then roll back wages and benefits at some mills? Would it be any more likely in that situation that concessions could save jobs? The cep’s paper industry caucus has made a choice to hold the line and, to this point, they have not crossed that line. The caucus is convinced that if separate deals to save mills undercut their industry agreement, not only wages and benefits, but the overall pattern bargaining system and the caucus itself will be undermined. Dave Coles’ prediction that the union’s paper caucus will be smaller when it emerges from the crisis is certain. But if it does so with pattern bargaining intact and without sacrificing its basic wages and benefits, tens of thousands of pensioners and the next generation of workers will owe these union leaders a great debt. By holding the line on our existing standards, defensive struggles against concessions – even if they involve plant closures and job losses – will be historically important in both preserving the value of our movement’s past gains, and in demonstrating concretely that workers will not pay (through concessions) for a crisis they did not create.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".