Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harry Arthurs came of age as a legal scholar during labour law's golden era, when collective labour law was considered transformative and, in terms of regulatory technique, cutting edge. That period ended sometime around late 1970s, and labour law has been searching for renewed relevance ever since. The well-worn narrative goes something like this: industrial pluralism, intellectual project to which Harry devoted so much of his life's work, is dead, exposed as a temporary and ultimately failed project; 'labour' as a class has lost its emotive and descriptive power; labour movement and institution of collective bargaining are sliding towards irrelevance for a number of reasons, including disintegration of standard employment model, and deregulatory pressures generated by globalization. For Harry, conclusion to be drawn is that we are living already in a world after labour. Such a thought is sobering indeed to those of us in early stages of our careers as labour law scholars! Have we arrived at examination table just in time to confirm Harry's dismal prognosis? If he is right, then what is left for us to do, other than to issue subject we had thought to study with its death certificate? In short essay, authors consider Arthurs' exploration of future of labour law as developed in his recent work, contrasting his approach to that taken by prominent British labour law scholars who have advocated a turn to the law of labour markets. While Harry has also proposed an extension of labour law's boundaries beyond its traditional focus on employment relationship, his approach remains firmly entrenched in normative tradition of labour law.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".