MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032170455 · doi:10.1177/0160449x10379643

Talking Ourselves to Death? The Prospects for Social Dialogue in North America—Lessons from Alberta

2010· article· en· W2032170455 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLabor Studies Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimitingContext (archaeology)Social dialoguePolitical scienceSocial movementPolitical economySociologyPoliticsHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Europe’s model of tripartite “social dialogue” has long been elusive in North America, yet unions continue to look at the model as a possible path toward greater policy influence. Is social dialogue possible in a North American context? Is it in the interests of the North American labor movement? This article examines two cases studies from the Canadian province of Alberta that reveal that a complex decision matrix faces unions considering participation in social dialogue. The necessary structural prerequisites for labor-friendly policy outcomes continue to be absent in North America, but the process may hold some promise in limiting employer initiative, at least in narrow policy fields. Unions also need to consider possible consequences for their capacity to organize and mobilize.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.326 · 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