MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312181728 · doi:10.1177/10242589221141055

Algorithmic management and collective bargaining

2022· article· en· W4312181728 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfer European Review of Labour and Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective bargainingLegislatureWork (physics)Freedom of associationTrade unionLaw and economicsPolitical scienceCollective intelligenceEconomicsPublic relationsKnowledge managementComputer scienceLawHuman rightsInternational tradeEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the challenges raised by the introduction of algorithmic management and artificial intelligence in the world of work, focusing on the risks that new managerial technologies present for fundamental rights and principles, such as non-discrimination, freedom of association and the right to privacy. The article argues that collective bargaining is the most suitable regulatory instrument for responding to these challenges, and that current EU legislative initiatives do not adequately recognise the role of collective bargaining in this area. It also maps current initiatives undertaken by national trade union movements in Europe to govern algorithmic 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.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.295 · 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