MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231100854 · doi:10.1108/oxan-db224550

NAFTA talks will raise Mexican labour reform pressure

2017· other· en· W4231100854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerald expert briefings · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmployment, Labor, and Gender Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective bargainingGovernment (linguistics)Freedom of associationLegislationHarmPolitical scienceTrade unionFree tradeFree trade agreementLabor relationsLabour lawInternational tradePolitical economyEconomicsLawHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject Mexico's trade unions. Significance On September 11, the head of Mexico’s main business lobby Coparmex called on Congress to advance several pending issues relating to labour reform before the 2018 elections, including legislation on labour relations, union regulation and collective bargaining contracts. The call comes as the government attempts to resist pressure from Washington and Ottawa to address labour disparities as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiations. Impacts Government and business will oppose any NAFTA alterations that might harm Mexico’s comparative advantages. Union leaders will resist strengthening the right to free association, which would allow workers to opt for alternative unions. The Confederation of Workers of Mexico will put pressure on its more than 11,000 affiliated unions to vote for the PRI in 2018. The independent National Union of Workers will call on affiliates to support leftist options. Discontent has increased among unionised workers, who will not necessarily vote along the same lines as the leaders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.013

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerald expert briefingsSame topicEmployment, Labor, and Gender StudiesFrench-language works237,207