Forum on Labour and the Economic Crisis: Can the Union Movement Rise to the Occasion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many labour activists and socialists no doubt felt mixed emotions as an over-leveraged, irresponsible, and morally bankrupt global financial system slipped into crisis. On one hand, at last the workers’ movement had a glorious opportunity to expose the failings of the current order and step up the fight for alternatives. On the other hand, it is equally clear that workers and their organizations will face fearsome attacks as employers and governments lash out at anything that restrains their efforts to resolve the crisis on their own terms. The crisis, therefore, presents the labour movement with an enormous opportunity, but also with enormous threats. The central tenets of neoliberalism are clearly more vulnerable to fundamental critique today than at any time since the emergence of this new order nearly three decades ago. Obviously this is true of the tough-love financial policies which have been a hallmark of neoliberalism from the beginning. Just a year or two ago there was a pompous conviction in mainstream economics1 that a “new consensus” had emerged in financial and monetary policy, according to which central banks should rigorously target the rate of inflation, and all other problems of macroeconomics (unemployment, inflation, and economic cycles) would then be solved. This view was the economic equivalent of Francis Fukuyama’s infamous claim about the “end of history” – arrogant, premature, and unfounded. Now it suddenly lies in shambles. Far from ushering
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".