Making the Pickets Responsible: Policing Labour at a Distance in Windsor, Ontario*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie l'introduction, en 1987, d'une politique sur les mesures de contrôle des conflits de travail à Windsor, en Ontario. La politique met l'accent sur l'usage explicite du consensus en fondant ses stratégies sur la coercition en situation de grève. Les événe‐ments qui ont menéà la mise en place de cette politique sont liés aux politiques régionales sur les mesures de contrôle ainsi qu'aux conditions économiques et industrielles en changement représentant le déclin général des relations industrielles fondées sur le modèle de Ford. Des changements à l'intérieur des forces policières tels que la mise sur pied de la police communautaire sont aussi considérés comme des explications importantes. La politique sur les conflits de travail ainsi que les changements dans les corps policiers sont considérés comme le reflet du déclin de l'État keynésien et du mouvement vers le néolibéralisme. This paper examines the 1987 introduction of a policy for policing labour disputes in Windsor, Ontario. The policy emphasizes the explicit use of consensus‐building tactics over coercion in strike situations. Events leading to this policy are traced to the local politics of policing and to changing economic and industrial conditions representing the general decline in Fordist industrial relations. Changes within the police, such as the adoption of community policing, are also considered as important explanations. Both the labour‐dispute policy and the broader police changes are understood as reflecting the decline of the Keynesian state and the movement toward neoliberalism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".