MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075604833 · doi:10.7202/051233ar

Les dilemmes de l'ANACT : ambiguïté ou complémentarité?

2005· article· fr· W2075604833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pierre Verge

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette analyse du contenu de /'Accord nord-américain de coopération dans le domaine du travail (ANACT), compte tenu de l'expérience résultant de ses cinq années d'application, cherche à en cerner la nature véritable, malgré une certaine dose d'ambiguïté qui lui est inhérente. A-t-il pour objet de protéger le commerce trinational ou le travail ? Dans quelle mesure s'impose-t-il aux trois droits nationaux en cause ? S'agit-il d'un objectif d'effectivité ou de progression de ces normes nationales du travail ? Enfin, pour ce qui est de la mise en œuvre de l'Accord, l'approche en est-elle une de coopération ou de confrontation ?

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.022
Scholarly communication0.0170.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207