Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors are engaged in a multi-dimensional project that analyzes Canadian private sector experience under provincial and federal labour statutes. The broad objective of the research is to draw nuanced lessons from the Canadian experience that will inform the debate over labour law reform in the U.S. This commentary reflects the authors ’ preliminary research results as they relate to the specific proposals included in the Employee Free Choice Act. he proposed amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) contained in the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) have spawned an intense, politicized, and frequently misleading debate about the merits and possible consequences of these changes. The volume and tone of discussion generated by EFCA gives the impression that its proposals – and the question before Congress – are more complicated than they really are. Distilled to its essence, EFCA is concerned with how to establish whether employees want collective representation, and where employees have chosen to be represented, how to ensure that they have an opportunity to engage in collective bargaining. The fundamental question is how to construct a statutory scheme which allows employees a genuine opportunity to choose and exercise collective representation in the workplace. Decades of experience in the United States have given rise to volumes of research and evidence showing that, under the NLRA as presently constructed, there is widespread, serious, and effective illegal conduct by employers that deprives workers of their opportunity to make a free choice about workplace
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.211 | 0.044 |
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".