From the Environment to the Workplace and Back Again? Occupational Health and Safety Activism in Ontario, 1970s–2000*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde la question des alliances entre les mouvements sociaux au moyen d'une étude sur la possibilité d'une convergence ou d'une alliance entre deux des mouvements sociaux les plus stables en Ontario au cours des trois dernières décennies: la santé et la sécurité au travail (SST) et les mouvements environnementaux. Les deux mouvements ont non seulement duré, mais ils ont été couronnés de succès. Aujourd'hui, cependant, chaque mouvement est fractionné et au repos. Les développements politiques récents poussent plusieurs activistes des mouvements ouvriers ou de la SST à réclamer une alliance avec les mouvements environnementaux. L'auteur soutient que, bien qu'il existe un bénéfice pour les deux mouvements en de telles entreprises, des différences de classes continuelles entre ces deux mouvements militent contre toute alliance durable. This article addresses the issue of alliances between social movements through an investigation into the possibility of a convergence and/or alliance between two of the most enduring social movements in Ontario over the past three decades: the occupational health and safety (OHS) and the environmental movements. Both movements have not only endured, but been successful movements. Presently, however, each movement is fragmented and becalmed. Recent political developments are leading many OHS/labour movement activists to argue for an alliance with environmental movements. I argue that while there is benefit to both movements in such undertakings, continuing class differences between these two movements militates against any enduring alliance.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".