Contemporary Industrial Relations Ideologies: A Study of Canadian Academics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study begins by identifying five competing ideologies characteristic of industrial relations in the postwar era. It then draws upon a survey data to explore the content, structure, and covariates of the industrial relations ideologies of Canadian academies. The findings are threefold. First, it would appear that there is substantial support for reforms to the Canadian System which strengthen the rights of workers and their unions. Yet there is also support for more cooperative labour-management relations in the workplace. This suggests an ideological shift to both the left andthe 'right' of orthodox pluralism, embodied in a 'neo-institutionalist' ideology. Second, factor analysis of 65 items strongly suggests that ideology varies along a single dimension, from 'right' to 'left'. Third, scholars specializing in IR or affiliated with an IR school tend to be slightly more 'leftwing' than their counterparts in economies and management. The implications of these findings for the field are briefly discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".