Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reveals that U.S. and Canadian public sector labor policy fail to conform to international understandings of freedom of association, a fundamental human right. 1 Globalization has set in motion new pressures for a reassessment of labor and union rights.A new paradigm is emerging where antiquated and inadequate labor policies that ignore these international standards may not be sustainable.2 By applying international human rights standards through such global institutions as the International Labor Organization (ILO), we find that most U.S public sector labor laws fall far short of international understandings of freedom of association and collective bargaining.While Canadian laws may conform to such understandings, Canadian governments have repeatedly violated the right to strike through frequent use of back-to-work laws.3 Our findings will underscore a contradiction between what is preached to the rest of the world and what is practiced at home in the United States and Canada in terms of human rights.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".