Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette analyse examine les défis auxquels les syndicats suédois ont été confrontés, en plus d’évaluer leur capacité à les relever.La première partie du texte passe brièvement en revue la théorie des ressources de pouvoir telle qu’elle s’applique au cassuédois*. On tente d’y démontrer que si le mouvement syndical suédois est en effet exemplaire, il est impossible de considérerses ressources comme permanentes ou absolues. De plus, il a fait l’objet de fortes pressions au cours des vingt dernières annéesalors que les employeurs tentaient de saper ses soutiens institutionnels. Il en a résulté des luttes importantes touchant les règlesdominant les relations entre le capital et le travail dans quatre domaines : la négociation des salaires, la formation, le temps detravail et la sécurité d’emploi. La capacité des syndicats de trouver des solutions pour contrer la polarisation du marché dutravail et maintenir ainsi la solidarité des salariés, dépend de leur relation avec le SAP et de leur capacité d’élaborer une nouvellealliance entre les principales associations de cols blancs et de cols bleus.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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.
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".