Future Directions for Labor Law Scholarship and International Collaboration.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One is to some extent the outcome of one’s history at any point in time. Therefore, unavoidably this paper will consider new directions for scholarship and international collaboration from the standpoint of both industrial relations and the French point of view. From this aspect, it is to be noted that the situation for French industrial relations is much worse than the one brilliantly described for Canadian labor law by Professor Arthurs. France trails all developed countries with a rate of union organization standing at around 8% and has a record and growing number of conflicting union centers sharing a smaller and smaller part of the eligible labor force. First, within the scope of the other papers and from this perspective, three important lessons can be learned from the experience of the Labor Law Group. Foremost among them is the importance of preparatory work, prior to international comparison. We cannot take things, and specially institutions, at face value. A long preliminary analysis among specialists is necessary to agree about what exactly is going to be the object of common work, before the comparative process can even begin. Since the work of the labor law group, we know that collective bargaining is not exactly either “negociation collective” nor “negociacion colectiva” in all countries and that works councils are very different from “betriebsrat.” There is plenty of room to apply the same analytical treatment to concepts as encompassing and as fuzzy as “globalization,” “flexibility,” and the like. To give a practical example, with typical old world creativity, French labor law has been recently enriched, for small enterprises, with what could be called a “two years long contract of employment for an indefinite duration with no job tenure.” It is in fact a contract for an indefinite duration, which, during the first two years can be broken at will without cause, exempt from the rules applying to
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".