MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986285116 · doi:10.1108/02683940110385758

The steward: destroying the myth

2001· article· en· W1986285116 on OpenAlexaff
James W. Thacker, Mitchell W. Fields

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managerial Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyaltyMythologySample (material)Social psychologyJob satisfactionPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceManagementSociologyLawEconomicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the accuracy of a widely‐held belief (or myth) that union stewards have particularly negative attitudes toward their employing organization. A large sample of rank and file employees and elected union officials served as participants in the present investigation. Data were collected via questionnaires that measured several relevant company‐related attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment) and union‐related attitudes (loyalty to the union, and responsibility to the union). Results indicated that union officials scored significantly higher than the general membership with respect to the union‐related variables. There were, however, no differences with respect to the company‐related variables. Union officials and the general membership were equally committed to their employing organization and equally satisfied with their jobs. This study provides evidence that the myth about union officials is just that, a myth, and is not empirically grounded.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.033
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.339 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managerial PsychologySame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207