The Conservative Upsurge and Labor Policy in the States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the early- to mid-2010s, there was a dramatic upsurge in conservative legislation restricting labor unions in U.S. states. The sweeping Republican victories at the state level in the 2010 midterm elections certainly enabled this legislative surge, though not all states controlled by conservative governments passed such legislation and there was considerable variation in the number of laws passed among states that did. Understanding the conditions under which restrictive labor laws are passed is important for labor scholarship as well as broader academic debates on corporate power and political influence. Using a longitudinal negative binomial regression analysis, this article evaluates the role of organized business and conservative mobilization on state labor policies between 2011 and 2016. Our findings are consistent with and extend literature emphasizing the growing influence of corporate interests on politics today. At the same time, the authors find little support for explanations emphasizing the economic aftershocks of the Great Recession and public opinion and find no evidence that grassroots pressure impacted state laws.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it