MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922337397 · doi:10.25071/1705-1436.95

Organizing for Better Working Conditions and Wages: The Unite Here! Hotel Workers Rising Campaign

2007· article· en· W2922337397 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJust Labour · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsLions Gate HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)PovertyHotel industryBusinessPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines some of the strategies and success of the UNITE HERE! union in its ongoing Hotel Workers Rising: Lifting One Another Above the Poverty Line campaign in the United States and Canada. This unique campaign has generated national attention in both the United States and Canada about issues facing hotel workers, including how changes in corporate policies aimed at pleasing the consumer - such as the shift to 'heavenly' beds - has had deleterious consequences for Room Attendants in terms of back injuries from lifting heavier mattresses. How successful has the UNITE HERE! been so far in terms of securing new contracts? What about in terms of organizing urban, suburban, and rural hotel employees? What barriers do unions face when organizing hotel workers? What does comparing union density rates in the hotel sector across cities reveal? After beginning to address some of these questions, this article concludes by providing some policy recommendations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.285 · 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