MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110331154 · doi:10.1177/1024258910373870

Understanding caring, organizing women: how framing a problem shapes union strategy

2010· article· en· W2110331154 on OpenAlexaff
Charlotte Yates

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfer European Review of Labour and Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)AppealPublic relationsPolitical scienceScope (computer science)SociologyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unions need more women members in order to grow. To organize and represent women, however, unions have to understand their different identities, issues and relationships at work. Using the concept of framing, in a case study of union organizing amongst child care workers, this article argues that unions struggle to define the scope and nature of a problem in ways that appeal to prospective women members and mobilize support for union-proposed solutions. The article explores how one union attempts to organize child care workers from diverse employment settings with divergent interests into a coalition with parents behind demands for a universal child care system.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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