and the Fair Labor Standards Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employers and workers both desire flexibility in working time. Businesses want flexibility to change the number of workers and their hours on short notice and in response to market demand and competition. At the same time, workers and their families want flexibility in allocating their work time—daily, weekly, and over their lifetimes—to balance competing demands on their time. For almost 60 years, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has mediated these differences and provided a standard to which both businesses and workers have had to conform. Its requirement of premium pay for hours over 40 a week was designed as an economic incentive for employers to limit the amount of time most hourly workers were required to work. Today, despite this economic incentive to limit weekly hours to 40, the demands on U.S. workers for more hours are increasing. As hours per week fall among our major industrialized trading partners (except Canada), average hours in the United States are rising. Overtime hours are rising as well. More-over, even with the protections of the FLSA, working hours are poorly distributed, with the result that many workers are working longer hours than they desire while others are working too few. These pressures notwithstanding, legislation has been introduced in Congress to amend the FLSA in ways that would ease the overtime restrictions. The proposals would allow workers to receive compensa-
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".