MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408843449 · doi:10.63409/2021.3

Getting Good Agreements

2021· article· en· W4408843449 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Dekker, Cecile Farnum

Bibliographic record

VenueCAUT Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines whether third-party intervention during collective bargaining has an impact on the quality of collective agreements in the post-secondary sector in Canada. Interviews were conducted with 15 faculty union negotiators in five different provinces. These identified both benefits and drawbacks to working with third parties during difficult rounds of collective bargaining. Improvements included better communication between the disputants, expeditious conflict resolution, and achieving sectoral norms when unions had fallen behind in extended health benefits or salary. Nonetheless, the interviews highlighted many risks and costs that unions experience with third-party intervention, especially when it is mandated by legislation and involves working with provincially appointed mediators, conciliators, and arbitrators.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCAUT JournalSame topicConflict Management and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207