Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book stems from my involvement in the Labor and Employment Relations Association (LERA).Although my affiliation with the organization began in the early 1980s, I became editor of its journal, Perspectives on Work, in late 2001, a position that provides a superb vantage point from which to view work and employment relations.Established as the Industrial Relations Research Association in the United States during the 1940s, LERA is currently reexamining all aspects of its mission, activities and plans in the wake of decreasing academic and practitioner membership that is part of an overall decline affecting the intellectual community associated with 'industrial relations,' especially in the United States and Canada.That ongoing reexamination, and the erosion that sparked it, prompted me to organize and prepare this volume.While I am one who believes strongly that the academic enterprise of industrial relations needs to survive (indeed, even flourish), I believe just as fervently in the need for the field to change.New directions in the study of work and employment are warranted, and charting and pursuing them requires -as this book shows -a rethinking of institutions, practices and concepts; it may even be necessary to rename the field ('employment relations' is currently the top contender).At the same time, this collection of essays demonstrates that moving forward does not mean turning our backs on the past.In fact, key insights from the early days of industrial relations may now be more important than ever.This book focuses primarily on industrial relations as it is practiced in the United States, but not all of its contributors are based in that country.Indeed, the project is collectively informed by training, teaching and scholarship that are global in scope.Due to unanticipated developments, plans to cast an even wider net in the current volume did not work out, but this collection is not intended to be the final word on the subject.Moreover, the book that came together provides a solid foundation for wider collaboration in the future.My job as the volume's editor has been made easier due to the talent and collegiality of the contributors, and I thank each of them for cheerfully participating in this project.I received much valuable assistance -especially in the project's early stages, when it was needed most -from Bruce Kaufman and John Budd, and I wish to acknowledge their help.Similarly, I want to xi
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.555 | 0.382 |
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".