Industrial Unionism and Its Bargaining Correlates in Nigeria Industrial Relations System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1960-1966, industrial relations system in Nigeria was based on Laissez-faire doctrine or voluntary ethic. The colonial trade union ordinance of 1938 allowed any five or more persons to form trade unions. The trend led to the proliferation of over 1000 mushroom unions which were not well organized and badly managed. Besides, all was not well with the organization, administration, finance, leadership and foreign relations of the unions. It was against this backdrop that government initiated a move to restructure the trade unions along industrial lines. The objective of this paper is to highlight the impact of industrial unionism on industrial relations system in Nigeria and also to examine the implications and changes it has created in the pattern of collective bargaining especially the multi-employer bargaining. The paper in its methodology adopted a theoretical approach which was blended with the authors’ versed and practical knowledge of the subject and trend of events. The paper concludes with recommendations on ways to make the multi-employer bargaining more effective or result-oriented.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Analysis of industrial unionism and collective bargaining in Nigeria; the object is an industrial relations system.
The paper analyzes industrial unionism and collective bargaining in Nigeria, not research itself.
Industrial relations and unionism in Nigeria; labor studies domain.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".