The origins and development of collective bargaining by nurses in British Columbia, 1912-76
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collective bargaining by nurses in British Columbia began in the mid 1940's, but the origins of concern about the terms and conditions of employment of nurses are identified as existing prior to the founding of the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia. The Board and Annual minutes, 1912-76, of the Association were examined and selected materials such as journals and interviews were reviewed to triangulate the validity of the data. Applying grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) to the data, dominant and secondary themes reflecting the Association's activities and concerns emerged. Analysis of the themes generated the categories of control of the work force, control of work practice and control of the work environment. That is, during the period under study, the Association struggled to exercise control over an uncertain environment. A series of strategies which the Association pursued are examined. Two groups within the Association are identified; cosmopolitans and locals (Merton, 1957). Discontent amongst the locals, the importance of which was recognized by the cosmopolitans resulted in the efforts of the Association shifting to concentrate on the control of the work environment. This process resulted in the entry of the Association into collective bargaining.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".