Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unions are a key force for a more equal and democratic society. Clearly, union influence within and outside of the workplace is partly a function of union density, or the proportion of workers who belong to unions. In Canada, union density today is much higher than in the United States, and has held up better than in many other advanced industrial countries. Nonetheless, density has slipped to just one in three workers and fewer than one in five private sector workers. In October 2003, the Canadian Labour Congress held an important mid-term conference on union organizing, bringing together researchers, union leaders, and activists to debate trends and strategies. The paper by CLC senior economist Andrew Jackson summarizes background research for the conference, and flags some of the main issues which emerged in discussion. It is followed by summaries of contributions to the conference made by Pradeep Kumar, Gregor Murray, and Charlotte Yates, and reflections on the conference by Ontario Federation of Labour Research Director Chris Schenk. Studies in Political Economy 124
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".