MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087597000 · doi:10.1177/102425890501100405

Building North-South international union alliances: evidence from Mexico

2005· article· en· W2087597000 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Lévesque, Mélanie Dufour‐Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfer European Review of Labour and Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityPolitical scienceOffensivePolitical economyEconomyDevelopment economicsInternational tradeSociologyEconomicsLawManagementPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers an overview of how Mexican unions get involved in international union alliances. It is intended to increase our understanding of the prospects for North-South union cooperation, as the ability to construct international alliances is at the heart of union responses to globalisation. Drawing on data gathered from seven Mexican unions affiliated to the International Metalworking Federation (IMF), the authors distinguish three patterns of union involvement: a localist/defensive pattern, which rests on a narrow conception of solidarity and on sporadic relations, rather limited in scope, with other unions affiliated to the IMF; a nationalist/offensive pattern characterised by a broader view of solidarity and by intense exchange of information with other IMF affiliates; and an internationalist/proactive pattern which rests on the community of interest between workers from different countries and on active cross-border coordination of action. A critical condition for cross-border alliances lies in the existence of several power resources. Without these resources a union cannot overcome the acute constraints that it faces. In conclusion, the authors discuss the prospect of union renewal and union empowerment through North-South international union alliances.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfer European Review of Labour and ResearchSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207