Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1940s, a decade of heightened militancy and struggle on the shop floor and on the picket line, were crucial years in the labour history of Canada.The experience of the Depression, closely followed by the mass mobilization of the workforce during the Second World War and later by the economic optimism of the postwar years, provided the impetus that led to a restructuring of the relationship between labour and the state.In Harnessing Labour Confrontation, Peter S. Mclnnis examines the reformation of Canadian society and its industrialrelations regime from the perspective of labour organizations and their supporters and from that of government and business.What results is a synthesis of labour and political history in which the author analyses the role of debate and confrontation in the formation of the national postwar compromise and in the birth of the modern welfare state.Mclnnis explores the constraints and possibilities that faced the labour movement in that era, as well as the conditions that gave rise to industrial legality.He identifies the factors affecting the postwar compromise, including the divided jurisdiction between federal and provincial governments, the return to gender-biased social norms, a developing Cold War climate of national insecurity, and a promise of strong consumer purchasing power based on postwar wage and benefit packages.A formative moment in Canadian history, the 1940s left as a legacy not only the welfare state but also the legal framework that has defined organized labour for five decades.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.766 | 0.502 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".