The Development of Employment Protection Legislation in the United Kingdom (1963-2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Britain, employment protection legislation developed in ways far more dynamic, contradictory and toothless than is commonly assumed by conventional theories. Contrary to prevailing understanding, the first job security laws were intended to increase labor market flexibility, encourage mobility and undermine union power. They were introduced by Conservative governments, curiously offering organized labor some benefits, even though both sides of industry opposed legal intervention. Hence, job security could be obtained and extended without capital (and at first labor’s) consent. What is more, opposite to the liberalizing pressures one would expect to see in an archetypal market economy, the UK has been characterized by far more protective measures than deregulatory ones. However, the record shows that in many ways they have failed to offer tangible benefits to workers. Thus, there is a significant gap between law in the statute books and law in action. Additionally, two-tier labor market reform has contributed to the growing dualism between insiders and outsiders and might explain why deregulation of temporary employment has been the name of the game in the last couple of decades in the UK.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".