MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800858845 · doi:10.25071/1705-1436.65

Achieving the Right to Strike: Ontario Teachers’ Unions and Professionalist Ideology

2009· article· en· W2800858845 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andy Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueJust Labour · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyPolitical scienceSociologyPublic administrationLabour economicsGender studiesLawEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

rior to 1975 and the passage of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act (Bill 100) teachers ’ unions in Ontario did not have the right to legally strike. From 1918 until 1975 teachers had employed moral suasion or occasionally mid-year resignations to convince boards of education to move towards the teachers ’ position at the bargaining table. Historically these conditions resulted in teachers ’ unions in Ontario being decidedly non-militant and seldom invoking job action of any sort. Teachers’ unions had shied away from aligning themselves with other unionized workers and had refrained from employing an ideology of labour solidarity to bring their members to the picket line. The sudden growth in teachers ’ union strength during the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in the William Davis Conservative government attempting to contain teachers ’ militancy. In response union leaders turned to an ideology of professionalism to mobilize their membership and won the right to strike. This paper will review the historical development of professionalism as a

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.023
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJust LabourSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207