[Provincial Bargaining Strategies conference records]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
File contains materials relating to the Association of University and College Employees' Bargaining Strategies Conference, held February 5-7th, 1982, as well as several articles and copies of legislation. Topics discussed include collective agreements, negotiations, contract language, job evaluations, sexual harassment, wage increases, benefits, bargaining, information on court cases, the Capilano College Labour Studies Programme from Spring 1982, copies of the 1979 Labour Code, the Essential Services Disputes Act (1977), the Employment Standards Act (1980), an article by David C. McPhillips entitled "The Duty to Bargain in Good Faith," "Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Canada" by H.W. Arthurs et al (Butterworths, Toronto, 1981), "Labour Relations and the Collective Bargaining Cycle" by G.E. Phillips (Butterworths, Toronto, 1981). File also contains a copy of AUCE Provincial News, dated January 1982, discussing affiliation with other unions (CLC, CCU), tensions between SORWUC and the Union of Bank Employees, reports from Locals, nominations, a report on the Constitution and Aboriginal People, the B.C. Federation of Labour Convention, Manpower training programs, video display terminals, additions to the Provincial Resource Centre such as publications, books, and reports, labour news, and a bargaining strategy workshop.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.551 | 0.344 |
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".