Has Voluntary Association Activity Declined? Cross‐national Analyses for Fifteen Countries*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les études antérieures concernant l'adhésion volontaire à des associations aux États‐Unis ont menéà des conclusions contradictoires concernant la diminution du membership. Nous analysons ici des participations nominales et actives à des associations à l'échelle du Canada, des États‐Unis ainsi que de 13 autres pays au début des années 1980 et au début des années 1990. Des comparaisons en fonction du temps sont faites, incluant les syndicats et les organisations religieuses, et excluant ces groupes, avant et après des'contrôles. Les résultats fournissent peu de preuves de déclin, pour le Canada, les États‐Unis ou les autres nations, en particulier pour des adhésions actives. Sans et avec contrôles, les États‐Unis, la République fédérale d'Allemagne et les Pays‐Bas font état d'augmentations significatives d'adhésions actives à des syndicats. Seule l'Espagne affiche des baisses substantielles d'adhésions actives au cours de cette période. Mis à part quelques exceptions, le tableau général en est un de stabilité, sans changement significatif. Previous studies of voluntary association membership in the United States have generated inconsistent conclusions about whether membership has declined. We analyse here both nominal and active association involvements for national samples from Canada, the U.S., and 13 other societies in the early 1980s and early 1990s. Temporal comparisons are made, with union and religious memberships both included and excluded, before and after controls. The results provide little evidence of decline, for Canada, the U.S., or the other nations, particularly for working memberships. Both without and with controls, the U.S., West Germany, and the Netherlands exhibit significant increases in working memberships. Only Spain shows substantial declines in working memberships over the period. With few exceptions, the overall pattern is one of stability, or no significant change.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".