MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770940443 · doi:10.1177/0170840617736934

All Equal in Death? Fighting inequality in the contemporary funeral industry

2017· article· en· W2770940443 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luc K. Audebrand, Marcos Barros

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSociologyPoliticsDominance (genetics)Collective actionInequalityStructural inequalityBattleOrganizational theoryPolitical economySocial movementSocial inequalityPolitical scienceEconomic geographyEconomicsLawManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how alternative economic organizations can fight inequality without help from traditional partners such as social movement organizations. We focus on co-operatives’ successful battle against corporate dominance in the Québec funeral industry. We analyse their actions through the lens of Nancy Fraser’s tridimensional theory of justice, which utilizes the cultural dimension of recognition, political dimension of representation, and economic dimension of distribution. We demonstrate how funeral co-ops empowered their federation to influence institutional inequality while maintaining a co-op identity by embodying the potentially contradictory flexibility of social movements along with co-op principles. This paper contributes to scholarship on collective social action by exploring the dual role of model and movement played by secondary co-ops such as the federation of Québec funeral co-ops, which draws on local institutional and organizational resources to disrupt unfair structures. We also extend Fraser’s theory, using it as a framework for understanding the dynamic relationships between inequality and its potential remedies at different levels of analysis.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.283
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization StudiesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207