MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126851619

Prepared Statement for the National Mediation Board Open Meeting Re: RLA Rulemaking Docket No. C 6964

2009· other· en· W7126851619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Bronfenbrenner

Bibliographic record

VenueeCommons (Cornell University) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRulemakingVotingStatement (logic)MediationWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testimony before the NMB hearings on the proposed rule change to the RLA that recommend changing the voting standard from the majority of eligible voters to the majority of votes cast. The testimony summarized findings from the first ever national academic study of organizing under the RLA. Based on findings that showed that under the RLA standard greater employer suppression is correlated with lower turnout while under the NLRB standard both the union and the employer work aggressively for high turn out, the author argued for changing the voting standard to majority of votes cast.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.208 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCommons (Cornell University)French-language works237,207