Comparable Worth: The Next Step toward Pay Equity under Title VII
Bibliographic record
Abstract
VII 1. 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1982).See infra notes 26-36 and accompanying text.2. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1982).See infra notes 37-40 and accompanying text.7. Comparable worth claims have been recognized in other countries.For example, Canada and Great Britain have moved beyond the equal pay for equal work standard.In order to combat sex-based wage discrimination, Great Britain prohibits pay disparity between men and women not only for equal work, but for work of equal value as well.Similarly, Canada prohibits pay disparity between men and women for work of equal value.Great Britain adopted its standard in 1970 and Canada adopted its standard in 1977.While the judiciary and the legislatures in the United States struggle with the merits of comparable worth claims, Great Britain and Canada have long since enforced the idea.See generally Note, Beyond Equal Pay for Equal Work: Recent Developments in the United States, Great Britain, and Canada, 7 B.C. INT'L & COMP.L. REV.179 (1984) (discussion of the developments of comparable worth in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain).8. A. COOK, COMPARABLE WORTH: THE PROBLEM AND STATES' APPROACHES TO WAGE Equrr 1 (1983).9. Bellace, Comparable Worth: Proving Sex-Based lWage Discrimination, 69 IOWA L. REV.655, 658 (1984).The Boards were established at the request of unions and management in order to carry out the no strike/no lockout commitments and as a means of resolving conflicts that could not be settled through bargaining.Id. at 658.See also Williams & Mc-Dowell, The Legal Framework, in
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".