Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the distinct approaches taken by legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom and Australia to the question of how their citizens might exercise freedom of association rights in employment, forming representative bodies – principally in the form of trade unions – that can muster collective strength and bargain with employers to secure the economic and social well-being of their members. The German-born British scholar Otto Kahn-Freund transmitted his observations of employer-employee relations that he made during the mid-20th century into a theory that acknowledged an almost complete retreat by the law from - and embraced a role for the state as a mere facilitator within – the UK’s industrial relations. His notion of a ‘collective laissez-faire’ kind of approach to the settlement of the terms of employment still resonates with labour lawyers and provides a framework within which effective analysis of contemporary industrial relations issues can continue to take place. Governments both in the UK and Australia have, over recent decades, attempted to exert more influence over the manner in which these relationships are conducted through tighter regulation of trade union activity and by shifting the emphasis of labour law away from the collective kinds of approaches that have traditionally been used to resolve workplace conflict to one that has promoted and significantly enhanced the individual’s "personal" employment rights and entitlements at work with consequent effects on their respective legal provision for recognition of trade unions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".