Bibliographic record
Abstract
The laws of collective bargaining can be categorized according to the authorized entities in the bargaining relations. Firstly, there is a system which labor unions get the status of entity for their own union memberships. The system, namely, a labor union system is constructed in labor laws of Korea and Japan. Secondly, a bargaining representative system entitles employees’ representatives to the right of collective bargaining instead of labor unions. It covers the U.S and Canada. Labor unions don’t need to get the representative status for collective bargaining separately in the labor union system. And the bargaining unit is not a decisive factor of the system differently from the system of bargaining representatives. But the labor union law of Korea has introduced the status of unions’ representative and the unit for collective bargaining under multi-unions conditions. The purpose is to force labor unions to choose their own representative for a single bargaining unit. The law has repealed the provisions including mandatory single union schemes but institutes the mandatory procedures of single unit in a workplace. The mandatory procedures are different from the bargaining unit system in NLRA of the U.S. The bargaining unit is a group or jobs of employees for choosing employees’ representative by the employees. But the mandatory single unit is a business or a workplace of single employer, in which labor unions should choose a union representative to bargaining collectively with employer. The mandatory procedures of single unit have some contradictory facet to the labor union system embodied in labor law and the Constitution of Korea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.010 |
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".