MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Right to Strike and Contestatory Citizenship

2018· book-chapter· en· W2916536909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Bogg, Cynthia Estlund

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipFreedom of associationPolitical scienceLawNew RightIdeal (ethics)Left and rightLaw and economicsCollective bargainingExclusive rightSociologyHuman rightsEngineeringPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is the right to strike a fundamental right? If so, what are its philosophical foundations? This chapter argues that the right to strike is a fundamental right resting upon three basic liberties: freedom from forced labour, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. In so doing, it challenges and rejects two dominant strategies in arguing for a fundamental right to strike: (a) that the right is derivative of a single basic liberty; (b) that the right is derivative of a right to collective bargaining. The contours of these basic liberties are developed using the republican ideal of non-domination and contestatory citizenship. Having defended a republican account of the philosophical foundations of the right to strike, the chapter then uses that framework to explore how the basic regulatory questions of a ‘right to strike’ have been addressed in Canada, the UK, and the US.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.038
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207