MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031250413 · doi:10.7202/050561ar

Private Sector Unions and Strategic Planning: A Research Agenda

2005· article· en· W2031250413 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kay Stratton, Yonatan Reshef

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate sectorStrategic planningPlan (archaeology)Resource (disambiguation)BusinessTrade unionPublic administrationPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growthMarketingInternational tradeGeography

Abstract

Private sector North American trade unions have declined in recent years. This paper argues that to prevent further erosion, unions should engage in strategic planning. Further, it highlights the importance of resource analysis to predict a union's likelihood to strategically plan, and presents relevant research hypotheses.

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.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Conceptual paper proposing hypotheses on union strategic planning; the 'research agenda' framing does not make research the object of study.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The paper proposes strategic planning for private-sector unions rather than studying research practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Labour-relations research agenda on private-sector unions’ strategic planning; object is unions, not research systems.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207