MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257053252

Union Democracy as a Foundation for a Participatory Society: A Theoretical Elaboration and Historical Example

2015· article· en· W2257053252 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom Langford

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyCitizen journalismDeliberative democracySociologyParticipatory democracyAccountabilityPolitical sciencePluralism (philosophy)Corporate governancePublic administrationLawEpistemologyManagementPoliticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay argues that union democracy (in the sense of active direct democracy at local levels in combination with highly accountable representative systems at more general levels) can be an important foundation for efforts to build a participatory society. It establishes, through a literature review, that pessimism about the capacity of unions to be functioning democracies is overstated; and then offers corrections for three weaknesses in the classical theory of participatory democracy. The first weakness – failing to analyze how participatory processes are gendered, racialized, and sexualized – is overcome by drawing upon feminist ideas for creating highly inclusive group processes. The second weakness – believing that an exaggerated consensus can be created through participation – is remedied with insights drawn from agonistic pluralism. The third weakness – assuming that participation in workplace governance is the essential, participatory training ground – is corrected with insights drawn from research on deliberative democracy. After enumerating eight reasons to pick unions as a focus for participatory efforts from amongst the various alternatives, the essay concludes with a historical example of how the combination of direct democracy and representative democratic accountability in the five United Mine Workers of America locals in the Crowsnest Pass, Canada, in the mid-20th century “spilled over” into this regional coalfield society, thereby nurturing a fledgling participatory society. Cet article soutient que la democratie syndicale (dans le sens d’une democratie directe dynamique aux niveaux locaux en conjonction avec un systeme representatif tres comptable aux niveaux plus generaux) peut etre une base importante pour les efforts de construire une societe participative. L’article etablit, par une analyse de la litterature, que le pessimisme a propos de la capacite des syndicats d’etre democraties efficaces est exagere; par la suite, il propose des corrections par rapport a trois faiblesses dans la theorie classique de la democratie participative. La premiere faiblesse – le manque d’analyse relative aux dimensions sexospecifiques, racialisees et sexualisees des processus participatifs – est reglee en tirant des idees feministes pour la creation de procedes de groupe vraiment inclusifs. La deuxieme faiblesse – la conviction qu’un consensus global entraine de la participation – est resolue avec des connaissances tirees du pluralisme agonistique. La troisieme faiblesse – la supposition que la participation au sein de la gouvernance en milieu de travail est le lieu essentiel de formation participative – est corrigee par des apercus de la recherche sur la democratie deliberative. Apres avoir enumere huit raisons d’axer sur les syndicats, parmi les differentes alternatives, comme centre des efforts participatifs, l’article conclut avec un exemple historique de la maniere dont la combinaison de democratie directe et de responsabilite democratique representative dans les cinq locaux du syndicat United Mine Workers of America dans le Crowsnest Pass, Canada, au milieu du XXe siecle a touche cette societe regionale de bassin houiller, encourageant ainsi une societe participative naissante.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207