MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070896999 · doi:10.7202/050940ar

Do Lawyers Affect Grievance Arbitration Outcomes? The Newfoundland Experience

2005· article· en· W2070896999 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kenneth Wm. Thornicroft

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrievanceAffect (linguistics)ArbitrationRepresentation (politics)Outcome (game theory)BusinessLawPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unions and employers are no doubt aware that retaining legal counsel necessitates a more expensive and less expeditious grievance arbitration process. But if a party's prospects for success are enhanced by legal representation, the additional delay and expense may be justified. Does legal representation affect grievance outcomes? Most arbitrators are lawyers. Does an arbitrator's legal training affect the outcome of a grievance"! These, and other issues are examined in this study. The results suggest that legal representation does not affect grievance outcomes; nor do lawyer-arbitrators decide cases any differently than their lay colleagues.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207