Employers and Exceptionalism: A Cross-Border Comparison of Washington State and British Columbia, 1890–1935
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on Sanford M. Jacoby's “American Exceptionalism Revisited: The Importance of Management,” this article tests his hypotheses about differences between American and Canadian employers. First, is “exceptionalism” useful for examining cross-national differences in capital/state/labor relations? Second, do Jacoby's independent and dependent variables make American employers different? Third, were American employers more individualistic, wealthy, aggressive, and hence effective in countering trade unions and socialism than employers elsewhere? This case study of Washington state and British Columbia employers and their organizations examines whether the two national groups differed in economic and social background, ideology, values, objectives, and tactics. This regional study reveals more similarities than differences “in kind.” It finds that socially and politically constructed factors, especially the extent of state interventions, created divergent cross-border industrial relations systems, rather than exceptionalism.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it