The Work Stoppages Data from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada [HRSDC]: A Research Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a research program on worker militancy, this note presents an overview of the data on work stoppages from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada [HRSDC] (previously Human Resources Development Canada [HRDC]) with reference to the 21261 strikes from 1966-2001. It unpacks the definitions embedded in 'work stoppage', considers how to group strikes by number of workers and duration, comments on the contract status and result variables, and discusses how strike issues are coded.Several themes emerge. The state's major interest in strikes relates to their economic impact, which is operationalized through 'person days lost'. A shift from 'person days lost', to worker militancy allows for revealing re-interpretations of the data which will help make visible the relevance of such stoppages to workers, unions and communities. Examining the HRSDC data in this new light also underscores the political nature of data collection (what is seen to be germane and not), and data presentation (what is made visible and what is concealed).
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".