Bibliographic record
Abstract
La sous-traitance est l'un des plus importants défis pour les syndicats à l'heure actuelle. Cet article explore quatre positions syndicales en matière de sous-traitance : opposition, défensive, abstention et offensive. Différents exemples tirés de nos observations sur le terrain permettent d'illustrer ici les différentes attitudes adoptées et les ressources susceptibles d'être mobilisées par les syndicats pour répondre à la sous-traitance. Le principal constat demeure que la réponse syndicale à la sous-traitance est bien souvent plus subtile et nuancée qu'une simple opposition inconditionnelle. Afin de conserver une certaine marge de manœuvre dans le développement et l'adoption d'une position en matière de sous-traitance, il est nécessaire pour un syndicat de travailler sur ses ressources de pouvoir. Quelques pistes sont suggérées pour y parvenir : le développement d'une vision globale, la mobilisation à l'interne, la construction de liens de solidarité à l'externe. Subcontracting is one of the most important current challenges for unions. This article explores four union positions with regard to subcontracting: oppositional, defensive, abstentionist and proactive. It draws on different examples and cases from the author's research in the field to highlight the different union stances and the resources likely to be mobilized by unions in response to subcontracting. The major finding is that rather than a simple position of unconditional opposition, union responses to subcontracting are highly varied and finely nuanced. Moreover, in order to enlarge its scope to develop a position on subcontracting, a union must work on its power resources. Several avenues are identified in order to reinforce these resources. It was found that a global vision, internal mobilization and the development of solidarity with outside groups all contribute to a greater capacity on the part of the union to deal with subcontracting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".