Collective bargaining under a compulsory conciliation system in the British Columbia coast forest industry 1947-1968
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the behavior of bargaining parties under a statutory scheme of compulsory conciliation. The statutory scheme used in the study is the basic pattern of conciliation effective in British Columbia from 1947 to 1968. Its general function is explained in a summarization of published criticisms of the process. A particular bargaining relationship -- that of the coast forest industry negotiations -- is examined on a historical and institutional basis to discover specific characteristics which would influence behavior under a conciliation process. Using this predicted pattern of interaction, a model of party behavior is constructed for the parties involved in actual negotiations. This is tested against a summarized chronology of the actual bargaining that occurred from 1947 to 1968. The model reveals the important sections within a system of compulsory conciliation which influence the behavior of the parties during negotiations. It also emphasizes the importance of the apparent fairness of the recommendation stage of conciliation and its value to the union as a tactical "watershed" for continued bargaining. The development of the dynamic process of party interaction in the coast forest industry emphasizes the importance of union internal or intra-organizational difficulties. It suggests the existence of a limit to the effectiveness of any bargaining system which does not control the desires of the union rank and file. With the dynamic process in mind, the analysis examines some of the influences that changing the statutory process would have upon the behavior of the parties. On this basis the actual significance or effectiveness of some past changes is analyzed and new changes are proposed. Too, the basic limits inherent in the compulsory conciliation system as a control over party behavior are emphasized.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".