MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050586156 · doi:10.1177/001979390205500309

On the Paradigm Guiding Industrial Relations Theory and Research: Reply to Thomas A. Kochan

2002· article· en· W2050586156 on OpenAlexaff
John Godard, John Thomas Delaney

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial and Labor Relations Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrial relationsField (mathematics)SociologyEpistemologyParadigm shiftManagementPhilosophyEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reply to Kochan, Thomas A., On the Paradigm Guiding Relations Theory and Research: Comment on John Godard and John T. Delaney, 'Reflections on the High Performance Paradigm's Implications for Relations as a Field.' Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, No. 4 (July), pp. 704-11. (Author's abstract.)

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 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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.017
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0410.080
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.093 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial and Labor Relations ReviewSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207