MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921484842 · doi:10.1177/001979390505800404

Labor-Management Cooperation: Antecedents and Impact on Organizational Performance

2005· article· en· W1921484842 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Deery, Roderick D. Iverson

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial and Labor Relations Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMultinational corporationLoyaltyProductivityAbsenteeismOrganizational justiceService (business)Industrial relationsMarketingPerceptionCustomer relationship managementOrganizational commitmentEconomicsManagementPsychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the antecedents and outcomes of labor-management cooperation. Data were drawn from 305 branches of a large unionized Australian-based multinational banking organization. The authors find that perceptions of a cooperative labor relations climate were positively influenced by procedural justice, the union's willingness to adopt an integrative approach to bargaining, and management's willingness to share information freely with the union. The findings also indicate that a cooperative labor-management relationship contributed to higher productivity and improved customer service. In addition, organizational commitment was found to have a positive effect on branch-level productivity and customer service, and union loyalty was associated with lower absenteeism.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations130
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial and Labor Relations ReviewSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207