MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Company Bargaining and Working Time Accounts in France and Germany

2022· article· en· W4291238537 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jens Thoemmes, Timo Giotto

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventions économiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsNegotiationCompromiseAutonomyWorking timeOrder (exchange)Production (economics)Collective bargainingWork (physics)Space (punctuation)BusinessEconomicsMarketingLabour economicsMicroeconomicsPolitical scienceFinanceEngineeringComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working time accounts are frequently used by employees in France and Germany to save and spend time. But do they really increase the time autonomy of individuals? Who decides on the design and use of these instruments? These accounts give companies the possibility to synchronize work with the production of goods in order to meet market demands. This means space for compromise and collective bargaining. Our research project aims to describe the negotiation, content and use of these accounts, highlighting important societal differences and addressing the question of time autonomy strengthening.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventions économiquesSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207