MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142190663

Unions and procedural justice: an alternative to the 'common rule'

2004· article· en· W3142190663 on OpenAlex
David Marsden

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLSE Research Online · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of TorontoLeverhulme TrustLondon School of Economics and Political Science
KeywordsProcedural justiceBureaucracyIncentiveEconomic JusticeWork (physics)BusinessPublic relationsPublic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsPsychologyMicroeconomicsLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can unions substitute a procedural justice role for their traditional reliance on establishing a ‘common rule’? The decline of ‘bureaucratic ’ models of employee management and the rise of performance pay and performance management conflicts with the common rule as management seek to tie rewards more closely to individual and organisational performance. CEP studies of performance pay in the British public services illustrate the potential for a procedural justice role to ensure that such pay systems are operated fairly, otherwise they risk demotivating staff. Evidence is presented to show that employees regard unions as effective vehicles for procedural justice. In this way, management can achieve better operation of their incentive schemes, and employees may experience less unfairness and poisoned work relations.

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 score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.382 · 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