MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366819300 · doi:10.1177/00323292231163690

The Corporation, Democracy, and the Idea of the Bicameral Firm

2023· article· en· W4366819300 on OpenAlex
Tom Malleson

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

VenuePolitics & Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyCorporationPoliticsStock (firearms)Context (archaeology)Industrial democracySociologyPolitical economySocial movementPublic relationsEconomicsPolitical scienceLawFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces this special issue on the bicameral firm. It lays the groundwork by providing a brief overview of the democratic firm in its historical and political context. The article describes the main problems that large undemocratic corporations pose for society; it contrasts the main ways in which theorists and social movements have sought to democratize the firm—from voice-centric models (such as codetermination) to ownership-centric models (such as Employee Stock Ownership Plans and worker cooperatives); and it outlines the historical ebbs and flows of political movements for enhanced workplace democracy. It is within this context that it is fruitful to consider Isabelle Ferreras's powerful proposal for a bicameral firm. The article concludes by considering the real-world prospects for economic bicameralism and highlights a number of questions that Ferreras's proposal motivates us to consider—questions that are urgent and vital for anyone who cares about the future of democracy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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