Economic performance and strike activity : a macroeconomic model of eight countries, 1955-1981 / by G. Wayne Greer. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After having explored the articles by Orley Ashenfelter and \nGeorge Johnson, and Martin Paldam and Peter Pederson, it was \ndiscovered that there existed a strong relationship between \nstrike activity and economic performance, But, how and to \nwhat extent that relationship existed was unknown., The original \nbelief was that there existed a positive relationship \nbetween economic performance and strike activity. That was \nsufficient from a philosophical point of view, to allow for \na more comprehensive study of the relationship. \nIt was quickly learned that it would be an impossible task, \ngiven all the econometric limitations, to prove that this \nrelationship existed. However, it was soon discovered that \nstrikes result, in principle, from a breakdown in the collective \nbargaining process, an impass at the negotiation stage. \nSince it was also known, that both sides prepare vast amounts \nof information during the pre-negotiation stage, it was assumed \nthat when labour and management, or labour, management and \ngovernment, as the case may be, enter into the collective \nbargaining process they utilize accumulated economic information \nas a basis for offers and counter-offers. Given the \nnature of these negotiations, particularly, in Canada, there would eventually be an impasse, and a resulting strike or \nlockout. \nTherefore, it was concluded that the economic variables \nutilized in the pre-negotiation stage of the collective bargaining \nprocess would be related, in some way, to the level \nof industrial conflict. Thus, the development of this study \nwas initiated. The study would explore the relationship \nbetween economic performance and strike activity through the \nuse of an econometric model, as well as an analysis of the \nhistorical development of industrial relations institutions \nin each of the eight countries that will be analysed in this \nstudy I Australia, Austria, Canada, Japan, Sweden, the United \nStates, the United Kingdom, and West Germany. Later in the \nstudy, an entire chapter will be devoted strictly to Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".