MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379617290 · doi:10.1353/iur.2016.a838380

Union labelling information for everyone who wants it

2016· article· en· W4379617290 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Union Rights · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)ClothingBusinessAppealGrievancePackaging and labelingAdvertisingPolitical scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Union product labelling has taken a couple of dramatic steps into the digital age in Canada. There is a long tradition across North America of helping progressive shoppers identify union-made goods and services when they shop. As early as the 1880s many unions commonly marked their goods – labels in clothing, signs in shop windows, union ‘bugs’ on printed goods, stamps and other marks on product labels. Famously in the 1920s and 1930s the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, which dominated the needle trades across North America in that time, developed the ‘Look for the Union Label’ campaign including a song to drive home the message. The appeal for buying union in those early days was to provide some assurance to consumers that the goods they were buying were not produced in sweat shops. The workers who made your dress or shoes or canned goods were paid fairly, with reasonable benefits and a grievance procedure and other protections against high-handed employers or supervisors. This motivation still exists today, though most clothing is now made in Asian sweatshops offshore. Nonetheless, Canadian and US unions have traditionally printed lists of union-made goods in their city or region for distribution mainly to union members. In many regions special Union Label Trades Councils were formed for this purpose. The AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour Congress both supported these initiatives, and the US organisation still publishes a union-made list though it is not comprehensive. In Canada there was no serious attempt to create a national list mainly because of the significant logistical challenges involved. Compounding the problem is the virtual disappearance of union labels in clothing, cards in shop windows and union bugs on consumer products today. The entreaty to ‘Look for the Union Label’ is futile. All which explains why, on January 1, 2012 we launched ShopUnion.ca. The website solves the distribution problem because our database is available to anyone anywhere with a computer, tablet or cell phone. It also solves the ‘union label’ problem because it uses product and manufacturer names rather than a tag, logo, sign or label to identify union-made goods. And we have made a point of collecting other regional or local lists whenever we can and dumping that information into our data base. Additionally, the data in the web site can be updated and changed on the fly, a major advantage over print. The web site uses the same search metaphor as Google. Items are identified with a list of key words, and users are encouraged to use the simplest, most common name for what they want. The site gives you the name and location of the business, its web site and the union. We post listings of products made anywhere in North America which are generally available for sale in stores across Canada and the United States. We do not pretend we have every union product made, but we are set up to accommodate as many as there are, and we are relentless in our search. We rely heavily on unions to share with us the names of companies they have under collective agreement. We have also sought out information on condiments, canned goods, breakfast cereals, snacks, candy, beer, wine, drugs and other such products which are quite often manufactured by large unionised companies. We then write a set of key words which represent the items or services they produce, and mount it in our data base. Listing services requires us to offer a region-specific search. It is not useful, for instance, to get a list of taxi cab companies in Toronto if you need a cab in Vancouver. Aside from listings, the two major challenges in managing ShopUnion.ca is attracting visitors to the site and playing the bills. We have found that social media and the communications apparatus of unions are our most productive means of informing progressive shoppers of the existence of the site. It is a free service to them, so that reduces the barriers to contact considerably. And our surveys have demonstrated to us that there is indeed a pentup demand for information on unionised goods. When people know where to go, they sign on. We...

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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