MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why Do Students Strike? Direct and Indirect Determinants of Collective Action Participation

2010· article· en· W2097270909 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Benjamin Giguère, Richard N. Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCollective actionCollective identityAction (physics)Social psychologyIdentification (biology)Social identity theoryIdentity (music)Value (mathematics)Collective efficacyField (mathematics)PsychologyPath analysis (statistics)SociologyPolitical scienceSocial groupPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current project investigated affective and strategic determinants of participation in collective actions by taking a multidimensional approach to collective identity (see Cameron, 2004) and investigating rational decision-making processes. A field study was conducted during an important student strike within the Canadian province of Quebec. One hundred and eighty four students attending the province's postsecondary francophone institutions participated in the study. Path modeling was used to investigate two channels to collective action participation. A direct path involved the affective dimensions of identification. An indirect strategic path revealed that pro-action arguments allowed individuals to derive instrumental value, which in turn led them to participate in collective actions. This indirect influence only occurred at higher self-control. The results and their implications for understanding participation in collective actions during social movements are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.412 · 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.

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

Citations48
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical PsychologySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207