Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the plans for a free trade agreement were first discussed, the North American trade unions were unanimous in their opposition to the idea. However, because of the fragmented nature of their action, they were unable to bring any influence to bear on either government action or public opinion. Yet now that trade in North America is becoming liberalised, it is evident that the outcome for trade unions is not as negative as might have been thought: the trade unions are playing an increasingly important role in the development of discussions on free trade, while their organisations have succeeded in reaching closer agreement with each other on these questions and bridges have been built between the unions and numerous forms of pressure group. The discussions on free trade have shaken up and transformed north-south trade union relations. The one-way cooperation between those who give and those who receive is a thing of the past. The trade union movements of north and south have discovered that their interests may lie together, that their needs can be reciprocal and that it is possible, therefore, for them to develop more egalitarian forms of relationship. This article presents, first of all, a review of trade unionism in North America, followed by a summary of the free trade agreements and a description of their application and of anticipated developments. It will then look at how trade union positions have evolved, moving on to an analysis of the power relationship in which the North American trade union movement, and that of the Americas as a whole, has a part to play.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".