The Employment Relationship: Current Research Avenues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This introduction presents the five articles selected for this special issue. First, it illustrates how each contribution relates to the social exchange theory, on which this entire special issue is based. The contributions of the five articles are highlighted and their main results are compared with those of previous work conducted on social exchange. The second part of the introduction presents various research perspectives on the employment relationship. The authors recommend avenues for contingent jobs, for a study of the employment relationship from a temporal perspective, and a multi-foci and multi-level approach of the employment relationship. They also recommend the use of longitudinal and quantitative research methods. This special issue of the Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations Journal is aimed at providing research avenues on several current issues surrounding the employment relationship. The employment relationship can be tackled either from an individual or from a more general perspective (labour market, manpower management, etc.), with each perspective allowing a complementary study of the employment relationship (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2005). The call for papers strongly favoured the individual perspective of the employment relationship. It defined the employment relationship as the relationship an employee or an individual builds with his organization, its representatives and its members. In this context, studying the employment relationship provides answers to a variety of research – BENTEIN, K., professor, co-chair of the Chaire de gestion des compétences, École des
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".