MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071594173 · doi:10.7202/051311ar

Members and Nonmembers: Determinants of Dues-Paying Membership in a Bargaining Unit

2005· article· en· W2071594173 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John A. McClendon

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective bargainingIdeologyUnit (ring theory)Corporate governancePerceptionPoliticsPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyDemographic economicsLabour economicsPublic relationsEconomicsManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study builds on the union organizing and free-rider literature by examining determinants of dues-paying membership in the Temple Association of University Professionals (TAUP). The TAUP, an American Federation of Teachers affiliate, is the collective bargaining representative for 992 members of the Temple University faculty, 52 percent of whom are dues-paying members. Results indicate that attitudes about unions in general, the costs of union dues, the perception of alternative faculty governance effectiveness, and beliefs about the appropriateness of unionization for professional employees were related to joining behaviour. In contrast, job attitudes, attitudes about the employer, perceived bargaining unit effectiveness, and political ideology were not significant predictors of membership status.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207