Company Towns in the Americas: Landscape, Power, and Working-Class Communities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Company Towns in the Americas: Landscape, Power and Working-Class Communities By Oliver J. Dinius andAngeL· Ver gar a, Editors Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2011. xi + 241 pp. Map, notes, bibliography, and index. $59.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8203-3329-8, $24.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8203-3682-4.Oliver Dinius and Angela Vergara have offered an edited volume on that presents a quite different and very comparative format, content, and series of analyses about a truly important and interesting topic. This comparative approach uses original essays on company towns in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, and Argentina that examine several differing industries in mining, agriculture, and manufacturing over varied time frames from the middle of the nineteenth century to the late twentieth century, and that had an almost bemusing array of different results, successes, and failures as both business ventures and as communities. While the existing literature about company towns is extensive and complex, the contents of this volume travel a long way towards a more detailed and comparative understanding of this phenomenon.Three macro-regions were selected for examination herein: Latin America, the United States, and Canada. Each essay studies selected company towns from vigorously different points of view. Andrew Herod sets the stage for these comparative studies with an extensive and thorough general presentation on concepts, interpretations, and understandings of many of the basic components and motives for company towns. While the economic characters of such communities might be the more obvious foci for study, Herod also forcefully presents a large set of social, political, and even psychological motives for the creation and maintenance of company towns. He calls such communities as much social through spatial engineering as simply practical means of attracting and holding work forces in company towns that often were located in isolated localities.Aurora Gomez-Galvarriato examines how company towns (based on textile manufacturing) evolved into union towns during the tumultuous times of the Mexican Revolution. Fernando Teixeira da Silva, studying the Brazilian port city of Santos, presents the idea that Santos was essentially an economic creation of its port functions and the dominating businesses and labor force clashes of that main type of business. He also confirms a point of Herod; that company towns do not have to be located in isolation to function as company towns. Elizabeth Esch chronicles the conception, establishment, development, and ultimate failure of Henry Ford's Fordlandia communities in the semi-tropics of Brazil. Ford's settlement/plantations failed not only because of mistakes in growing the wrong type of rubber, but also persisted in misguided, and stubborn attempts at overwhelming engineering. Ford managed to produce very little rubber for his cars, and losttens of millions of dollars in these schemes.Oliver Dinius' study of Volta Redonda, Brazil's steel company also records how attempts at (this time more religiously based in Catholicism and Brazilian nationalism) became confused and entwined in the dreams of Vargas, the Brazilian leader of the 1930s-50s to modernize Brazil rapidly. Eugenio Garces Felice and Angela Vergara studied El Salvador, a later mining operation in the Chilean Andes. The owners of this town and mining operation used the most modern means of housing, human services, and facilities, but by the 1970s, the Chilean government nationalized both the mining activities and the town itself. The other Latin American company town of Firmai, Argentina (by Silvia Simonassi) was a manufacturing-type of company town, making agricultural machinery.There were two other essays. One, by Christopher Post, studied the making and activities of a U.S. Federal company town: Sunflower Village, Kansas. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».