MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

El debate sobre la flexibilidad laboral en la India. Argumentos en contra de los acuerdos voluntarios

2014· article· es· W1989737859 on OpenAlexaff
Anamitra Roychowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Internacional del Trabajo · 2014
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Stephen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumen Un punto candente del debate sobre flexibilización laboral en la India es la obligación de que las empresas de 100 asalariados o más obtengan permiso del Gobierno para los despidos. Quienes abogan por revocar dicha ley (o elevar sustancialmente el umbral de trabajadores) se basan en Basu, Fields y Debgupta (2009), cuya argumentación teórica a favor del despido y la contratación libres sobre la base de acuerdos voluntarios se cuestiona aquí: la recomendación política general de estos autores no se sostiene lógicamente ni siquiera en el marco de su propio modelo, por lo que esta alternativa de flexibilización sigue sin fundamento.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.349 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Internacional del TrabajoSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207