Participación de los trabajadores. Precisiones sobre la participación accionaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEjemplos interesantes de participacion de trabajadores en el capital se observanen diversos espacios laborales, pueden ir desde los referidos a las Cooperativas de Trabajo Asociado (CTAs), el caso mas ilustrativo, pasando por los estadounidenses Planes de Participacion de los Empleados en el Capital (Employee Stock Ownership Plans, ESOP) y las espanolas Sociedades Anonimas Laborales (SALs), hasta otras formulas de participacion accionaria como las canadienses Cooperativas de Trabajadores Accionistas existentes desde 1985 que normalmente se constituyen cuando las empresas necesitan financiarse e incentivan a sus trabajadores o estos proponen constituir una cooperativa que adquiera colectivamente parte de las acciones y asi financiar y salvar la empresa conservando sus empleos e incidiendo en su gestion desde una optica diferente. A esta modalidad de participacion accionaria se refiere este articulo. EnglishInteresting examples of workers’ participation in their companies can also be found in different workplaces; this is the case of the Associated Work Cooperative (CTAs), the most well known case, and also the American Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) as well as the Spanish public limited companies (SALs), and other shareholding formulas such as the Canadian worker-shareholder cooperatives existing from 1985. They have been incorporated when the company has needed financing therefore, they have encouraged their workers or in cases where they suggest establishing a cooperative that holds collectively a part of the capital stock and consequently, financing the company, saving their jobs and influencing the management. This is the statement referred in my article
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".