MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142204833 · doi:10.1177/0032329204267294

A Labor of Laws: Courts and the Mobilization of French Workers

2004· article· en· W2142204833 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Couton

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics & Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabor relationsRepresentativeness heuristicIndustrial relationsMobilizationPower (physics)State (computer science)Labor historyLabor unionPolitical economyPolitical sciencePosition (finance)LawSociologyEconomicsLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By most measures, French labor is among the weakest in the industrialized world. Yet it has retained a high level of mobilizing and institutional power. This unusual position is partly due to the historical role of labor courts, one of France’s oldest and most influential labor institutions. Based on a range of historical and contemporary evidence, this article shows that the involvement of the state and labor in these courts over the past two centuries has played a crucial role in the evolution of French industrial relations. This process unfolded along three main dimensions: the early establishment of labor courts strongly and durably influenced the mobilization patterns of the emergent labor movement, France’s labor relations model was largely inspired by the judicialism embedded in labor courts, and a combination of more contingent events led to the emergence of a problematic notion of union“representativeness.” These patterns have contributed to shape French labor into its present condition of both weakness and strength.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics & SocietySame topicEuropean Political History AnalysisFrench-language works237,207