MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7019151739

The Evolution of the Regulatory Framework for Trade Union Training in Australia

2022· article· en· W7019151739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawTrade unionContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Work (physics)Industrial relationsLegislationPosition (finance)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by trade union education programs in the United Kingdom, Europe and Canada, the Trade Union Training Authority (TUTA) and Clyde Cameron College were established with bipartisan support by passage of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. The delivery of trade union education through a publicly funded statutory body was significant internationally and continued until the Howard Government abolished TUTA in 1996. This article explores how the TUTA promise of worker education was delivered at the workplace level, examining the development of union education leave clauses in awards and agreements and the approach of the federal industrial tribunal in considering claims for this form of leave from the early 1970s. It considers the changing position with respect to trade union education leave under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), in the context of provisions regulating the institutional and organisational rights of unions more generally. The article aims to examine the nature of various forms of legal support for workers’ access to union training and the effects of shifting legal and regulatory frameworks over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→