In Unions We Trust! Analysing Confidence in Unions across Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Public institutions and trade unions in particular are often portrayed as facing a deep crisis. In order to better understand to what extent unions are still perceived as legitimate institutions from the society as a whole (working and non‐working individuals), we analyse the determinants of confidence in unions across 14 European countries between 1981 and 2009. Confidence in unions is explained through individual‐level variables (by a rational and an ideational mechanism) and contextual‐level factors (relevant economic and employment relations characteristics). Using data from the European Values Study (EVS) merged with contextual datasets, we develop a series of regression models to examine the main determinants of confidence in unions. We demonstrate that confidence in unions cannot only be traced back to the support from members and left‐wing oriented individuals but it is also related to non‐working individuals and vulnerable social groups, in particular when confronted with economic shocks. Our findings challenge both the ‘crisis of confidence’ in institutions and the ‘crisis of unionism’ narratives. Implications for union representation and organizing strategies 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".