Understanding the Absence of Unionized Workers in Rural Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This preliminary study spatially locates 333,881 unionized workers in the Canadian province of Alberta, identifying that a disproportionate percentage of unionized workers are located in urban centres and in bargaining units of greater than 100 members. Most unionized rural workers are found in large, public-sector bargaining units. Interviews with trade unionists suggest possible explanations for this pattern, including the unequal distribution of capital, rural workers’ spatial embeddedness, unions’ preference for large bargaining units, and the differentially and negative impact of weak labour laws on rural workers. Keywords: unions; rural; labor geography; Alberta; Canada ----------------------------------------------------- Cette etude preliminaire localise geographiquement 333 881 travailleurs syndiques dans la province de l'Alberta, au Canada, identifiant qu'un pourcentage disproportionne de travailleurs syndiques sont localises dans les centres urbains et dans les centres de negociation. Des entrevues avec des syndicalistes suggerent des explications possibles a ces tendances, incluant la repartition inegale du capital, l'integration spatiale du travailleur rural, la preference des syndicats pour de grandes unites de negociation, et les impacts differentiels et negatifs des lois du travail inadaptees aux travailleurs ruraux.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".