MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2805210262 · doi:10.1353/llt.2018.0024

Knights Across the Atlantic: The Knights of Labor in Britain and Ireland by Steven Parfitt

2018· article· en· W2805210262 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert M. Weir

Notice bibliographique

RevueLabour / Le Travail · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLabor Movements and Unions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAdmirationIrishNothingIdeologyHistoryArt historyLawPoliticsArtPolitical scienceLiteraturePhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Knights Across the Atlantic: The Knights of Labor in Britain and Ireland by Steven Parfitt Robert Weir Steven Parfitt, Knights Across the Atlantic: The Knights of Labor in Britain and Ireland (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press 2016) My name is evoked often in Steven Parfitt's Knights Across the Atlantic, but my admiration for this book has nothing to do with that. In fact, one of Parfitt's contributions is that he addresses lacunae in my work. So let me be among the first to congratulate him on an effort that casts him as a leading light in the next generation of Knights of Labor (kol) scholars, alongside researchers such as Joseph Gertis and Alex Gourevitch. Gaze carefully into the late 19th century and kol footprints are everywhere. Sometimes, though, the trail is akin to tracks in melting snow – in part because of disorganization or kol secrecy codes, but in large measure because the Knights were deliberately marginalized. For the left, Knights flunked ideological purity tests, for mainstream politicians they were too radical, and for future trade federations they were non-pragmatic. Because the kol faded, it was easy for its detractors to toss it into history's rubbish bin. Parfitt wisely rejects such thinking and views the kol's United Kingdom experience through lenses such as Marcel Van der Linden's thoughts on transnational labour movements and Kim Voss's assertion that American exceptionalism was not part of the 1880s labour landscape. Borders are often fictive and they were especially so in the late 19th century. As Parfitt notes, workers such as potters and glassmakers freely crossed national boundaries, far away labour markets determined local wage rates, victories and defeats elsewhere cheered or disheartened workers, and organizational identities were fluid. The last of these also contributes to the kol's elusiveness. British and Irish Knights left tracks, but what was the boot heel's imprint? kol? Fabian? Social Democratic? Irish Land League? Liberal? Trade unionist? Scottish Land Restoration League? In many cases, the only answer is "yes." One must appreciate this to grasp the subtlety of arguments Parfitt makes later in his book, including that that the kol was part of the new unionism of the late 1880s and simultaneously in opposition to it, was both outside and inside Liberal-Labour alliances, and future Labour parties were both like and unlike the Knights. He begins his UK study of the kol, as one must, by consulting Henry Pelling, who until now best unspooled the various threads followed by British and Irish Knights. Parfitt went on to scour archives, official records, and newspapers in both Britain and the United States. He addresses the question of why an American movement found purchase on British soil; in 1880 just 4 per cent of British and Irish workers were organized and their unions were viewed "as conservative and aloof or … overly cautious." (30) Small wonder [End Page 298] that, for many, "the Knights represented the future of trade unionism." (29) The efforts of Staffordshire potters to form a kol local in 1882 proved a false start, but as in New Zealand and elsewhere, UK Knights gained momentum in the late 1880s and early 1890s, even as the North American movement waned. At least 74 local assemblies formed in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland – eight more than noted in Jonathan Garlock's database. Many of these had no official number, another challenge for kol scholars. In truth, no one knows how many Knights there were anywhere, only that the often-cited 1886 high water mark of 729,000 is grossly understated. Parfitt reckons that some 20,000 British workers passed through the kol or – depending upon where one wishes to draw organizational borders – perhaps as many as 40,000. Would anyone be shocked if future research revises the figure upward? Numbers alone demonstrate the necessity of removing the kol from history's margins and looking more carefully at its contributions, inspirations, and pitfalls. Parfitt has much to say on all three subjects and some of it topples older assumptions. The kol's contributions across the Atlantic extended far beyond workplace disputes. Solidarity is the Holy Grail of labour movements and the kol...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,088
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,175

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,005
Communication savante0,0110,006
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0280,010

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,268
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLabour / Le TravailMême sujetLabor Movements and UnionsTravaux en français237 207