MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bargaining for Security with Flexibility in Toronto’s Attendant Services

2020· book-chapter· en· W3122158394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia J. Cranford

Bibliographic record

VenueCornell University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationFlexibility (engineering)Collective bargainingBusinessLabour economicsJob securityCitizen journalismDemocracyEconomicsPolitical scienceEngineeringPoliticsManagementLawWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter studies Toronto's attendant services. In attendant services, workers had considerable labor market security through relatively high wages, benefits, and job protection. Managers did not willingly support workers' security but rather the union pushed them to do so. This security coincided with limited flexibility at the labor market level in that consumers had little influence over which attendant helped them on a given shift. Nevertheless, attendants and consumers alike gave many examples of bargaining for flexibility and security at the intimate level. Interviews with consumers, attendants, union activists, disability activists, and employers support the claim that, overall, attendant services included a process of collective negotiation marked by representative and participatory democracy for both groups and an outcome of compromises.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCornell University Press eBooksSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207