Occupational Health and Labor Unions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The resurgence of labor unions in the U.S., evidenced by recent unionization successes across various industries, reflects a broader revival of organized labor's role in workplace advocacy. These developments counter a long-term decline in union membership, with global efforts also seeing modest gains. As is demonstrated in this series of contributions, labor unions remain critical in promoting occupational health and safety, mitigating workplace hazards, and addressing psychosocial risks such as stress and harassment. Historically, unions have shaped labor standards and influenced the development of safety regulations. Today, they contribute to broader societal benefits, including democratic participation, workplace well-being, and public health innovation. Despite their significant contributions, unions face challenges from globalization, technological changes, the rise of non-standard work arrangements, and political polarization. Despite the critical role unions play in occupational health and organizations more generally, organizational scientists have paid relatively little attention to unions. In response, this series of contributions highlights the need for renewed scholarly attention, particularly in industrial-organizational psychology, to support unions in safeguarding workers' rights and well-being.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".