Workplace inequity in unionized social justice organizations: reflections on walking the talk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This interpretive study examines the gap between social justice principles and practice, focussing on how workplace inequity is produced in unionized social justice organizations. Starting with the author's experience and the experiences of other racialized, rank-and-file union women, this research considers how organizational and social practices produce racial, gender and class inequality in ten unionized social justice organizations based in Canada. Intersectional and postcolonial theories are used to analyse research participants' accounts in order to examine the complex ways in which multiple forms of inequality are created in workplace settings. Research participants' interpretations of their experiences are also a subject of enquiry in this study. The findings of this research offer suggestions for the development of strategies that unions and others can use to advance equity in the 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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".