Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian participation was hampered, typically, by federal-provincial squabbles. Federal accession to North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) did not compel provincial acceptance of North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC), which involved labour matters under provincial control. The Canadian government hoped the intergovernmental committee would reach consensus on responses to submissions, but could act on its own in accordance with the NAFTA labour accord if agreement was lacking among provinces. Canadian unionists remained hostile to NAFTA, and advocated alternative models of transnational social unionism. Canadian National Administrative Office (NAO) 98-2, dealing with the Yale case, covered the same issues raised in MEX NAO 9804. The Labour Policy Association and EFCO submitted a lengthy document to the Canadian NAO. Canada&s;s use of the NAALC submissions process has been limited so far. This reflects in part the attitude of Canadian officials who preferred to emphasize cooperative activities and communication under NAALC, not confrontational submissions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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".