Strategies for Improving Labor Dispute Resolution Mechanisms under the Application of Artificial Intelligence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction of harmonious labor relations is of great significance in improving the quality of public services and promoting social harmony and stability.The study uses multi-period DID algorithm to construct a mathematical model of artificial intelligence application and labor dispute resolution, and conducts research on the influence relationship between the two.Aiming at the lack of preventive mechanisms for labor dispute resolution at present, principal component analysis and artificial neural network are used to establish a labor relations early warning model.The results show that artificial intelligence application has a significant positive impact on labor dispute resolution at the 5% level, and there is regional heterogeneity.The prediction accuracy of PCA-ANN model on labor relations in the training set and test set is 81.25% and 85.71%, respectively, which presents a good effect of early warning of labor relations, and it can be used to improve the mechanism of labor dispute resolution.Finally, based on artificial intelligence technology, the online labor dispute resolution mechanism is proposed to prevent the escalation of labor disputes and improve the effectiveness of labor dispute resolution by focusing on prevention, secondary control and subsequent resolution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it