MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Labor Relations

2009· book-chapter· en· W4232224720 on OpenAlexaff
E. Kevin Kelloway, C. Gail Hepburn, Lori Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabor relationsIndustrial relationsNegotiationHuman resource managementEnforcementPolitical scienceLabour lawLabor disputesLabor unionHuman relationsHuman resourcesCollective actionPublic relationsLabour economicsBusinessSociologyEconomicsLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although the extent of unionization may have declined in some jurisdictions, the practice of labor relations continues to have considerable impact on both individuals and organizations. On the organizational front, labor relations practice has implications for the implementation of human resource practices in organizations. For individuals, the dynamic of labor relations has been characterized as involving both conflict and change. This article reviews research on labor relations, highlighting its impact on individuals and organizations. It begins by considering the extent and nature of unionization in various jurisdictions. The article then considers the major “events” characterizing labor relations; from an individual's decision to join a union, through the negotiation of collective agreements and related strike action, to the administration and enforcement of agreement provisions via member grievances. It concludes with a review of other research assessing consequences of labor relations that are of critical importance for human resource management.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.019

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→