MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1771349813

A History of Legal Exclusion: Labour Relations Laws and British Columbia’s Agricultural Workers, 1937–1975

2014· article· en· W1771349813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationCollective bargainingAgricultureIndustrial relationsGovernment (linguistics)ConciliationPolitical scienceArbitrationLawLabor relationsLegislatureLabour economicsBusinessEconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to labour relations legislation is generally seen as a prerequisite to unionization of agricultural workers in Canada. British Columbia is one of eight Canadian provinces that now include agricultural workers in provincial labour relations legislation. But agricultural workers were not always included. Although union organizing and strike activity were not unheard of in BC’s agricultural sector in the 1930s, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1937 excluded agricultural workers. This exclusion followed a larger pattern of excluding agricultural workers from employment-related legislation. Agricultural workers continued to be excluded until the mid-1970s, when the efforts of NDP backbenchers persuaded their own government that agricultural workers ought to be included in provincial collective bargaining laws. As demonstrated in a brief overview of the two campaigns to unionize agricultural workers under BC’s labour relations legislation since 1975, although small numbers of workers have been able to form unions and achieve collective agreements under the legislative protections of the Labour Code, those collective bargaining relationships have thus far proven unstable and often short-lived.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207