MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761888982 · doi:10.1177/0049124117729709

Power Law Distributions and the Size Distribution of Strikes

2017· article· en· W2761888982 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Methods & Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLog-normal distributionEconometricsDistribution (mathematics)Power lawStatisticsPower (physics)Perspective (graphical)Pareto distributionDuration (music)LawEconomicsMathematicsPolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Canadian data from 1976 to 2014, I study the size distribution of strikes with three alternative measures of strike size: the number of workers on strike, strike duration in calendar days, and the number of person calendar days lost to a strike. I use a maximum likelihood framework that provides a way to estimate distributions, evaluate model fit, and also test against alternative distributions. I consider a few theories that can create power law distributions in strike size, such as the joint costs model that posits strike size is inversely proportional to dispute costs. I find that the power law distribution fits the data for the number of lost person calendar days relatively well and is also more appropriate than the lognormal distribution. I also discuss the implications of my findings from a methodological, research, and policy perspective.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it