Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article traite des problèmes que posent la recherche et l’analyse comparatives dans le domaine des relations industrielles,notamment les comparaisons entre syndicats de pays différents. Ces comparaisons sont importantes des points de vue pratiqueet théorique, mais elles ne se font pas sans mal, en partie parce qu’il est paradoxal de tenter de généraliser des cas nationaux,qui à bien des égards sont uniques. L’auteur analyse trois différents types d’analyse, soit respectivement l’approche institutionnelle,l’approche fonctionnelle et l’approche axée sur des enjeux. En conclusion, il fait ressortir le caractère itératif de la rechercheet de l’analyse et souligne que des comparaisons plurinationales satisfaisantes représentent sans doute un objectifinatteignable, mais qu’il est à la fois nécessaire et utile de poursuivre.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.001 |
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.
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".