Supersizing the Impact of Unions in Downsizing Processes: A Configurational Approach Based on 19 Cases in France
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
This article explores how unions can influence employer decisions to downsize – a longstanding question that has been addressed through three waves of research. Although the literature has successively identified three types of factors that influence managerial decisions to downsize, it has not fully addressed the interactions of these factors, leading to inconsistencies. This article builds on and refines the existing work through a configurational approach which qualitatively evidences six downsizing configurations through a uniquely large number of cases ( n = 19). This research sheds new light on how factors combine to enhance union influence by theorizing four types of chemical-like factor interactions: catalysing, inhibiting, synthesizing and decomposing. By highlighting this interactive chemistry, this configurational approach revisits longstanding academic debates about the context–union strategy fit and the relative efficacy of union responses. From a practical perspective, it encourages unions to reject the idea that there is a single, optimal strategy for addressing downsizing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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