MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Conditions Promoting Compromise in the Workplace

2007· article· en· W2056916529 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Industrial Relations · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructuringCompromiseIndustrial organizationProduct (mathematics)Field (mathematics)Key (lock)BusinessCapital (architecture)Industrial relationsProduct marketRisk analysis (engineering)EconomicsProcess managementEconomic systemPublic economicsManagement scienceEnvironmental economicsMicroeconomicsComputer scienceSociologyManagementFinanceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A previous article developed a framework to understand workplace co‐operation. We now elaborate on the key structuring conditions (technology, product markets and institutional regulation) generating different patterns and illustrate from field research how these different workplace regimes develop. Conditions generating positive and sustainable outcomes for both capital and labour are feasible but rare; stronger ‘beneficial constraints’ are needed if they are to be made more frequent. This article provides an alternative to current interpretations of labour–management co‐operation in the industrial relations literature.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.281 · 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