Pensions and Public-Private Partnerships: A Cautionary Note for Union Trustees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major demand of public sector unions in recent years has been for greater control over their members’ pension plans. Recently, several provincial governments, most notably British Columbia, have agreed to joint trusteeship, a development which gives union trustees a voice in investment policy.This article focuses on the implications for union trustees of investments in Public Private Partnerships (P-3s) and related privatization initiatives. Examples of such investments include: transportation infrastructure projects, hospitals and health services, schools, municipal water and sewer systems, electrical utilities, and other projects that, historically, have been within the public sector.It argues that trustees should be wary of such investments. Public sector unions have criticized privatization initiatives as a threat to public sector jobs and services. P-3 investments are problematic because they may threaten the jobs of their union’s members, undermine the credibility of their union’s public policy objections to privatization and, in the end, may prove far more risky than P-3 promoters contend.
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 | 0.042 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.050 | 0.080 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".