Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the implementation of a model of systematic individualisation of the employment relationship by a large multinational corporation in Australia, operating with the support of a pro-corporate state, and the nature and effects of resistance. Principally through interviews with affected workers, we show how the symbolic and the real effects of employment practices, relational practices and informational practices were all aimed at removing freedom of association and replacing it with uncontested, union-free managerial control. We consider how workers and their families were affected by these strategies and how they and their union responded.Cet article examine la mise en place d'un modèle systématique d'individualisation de la relation d'emploi par une grande multinationale australienne, cela avec le support d'un gouvernement partialement favorable au patronat. La nature et l'impact de la résistance des travailleurs syndiqués sont également mis à jour. Nous montrons, principalement à l'appui des témoignages des travailleurs en cause, comment les effets réels ou symboliques des pratiques d'emploi, ceux des pratiques relationnelles et informationnelles ont été utilisés de concert pour dénier la liberté d'association et la remplacer par un contrôle gestionnaire incontestable et exempt de présence syndicale. Nous relatons comment les travailleurs et leurs familles ont souffert de ces stratégies patronales et comment leur syndicat a rétorqué.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".