MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559952852

Chinese Workers Confront Capitalist Labour Relations

2009· article· en· W1559952852 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Li Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueLabour / Le Travail · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodificationChinaDeskillingPoliticsCommercializationSociologyPolitical economyPopulationPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPolarization (electrochemistry)EconomicsEconomyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China’s economic reform initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 has engendered tremendous social, economic, and political changes on local society. In more recent years, with the deepening of privatization and commercialization, the life of ordinary people, especially working men and women, has been significantly reshaped by new policies and practices under the influence of neo-liberalism. As China has continued to display a remarkable growth in gross domestic product (gdp) annually over the past decade, however, socioeconomic polarization has also escalated and has created deeper divides among the population. One of the areas that has been affected and transformed significantly during this period is the field of work and labour. Today work is reorganized in a radically different way than in the past. There are profound trends of commodification of labour, the reconfiguration of classes, and the rise of new labour activism and popular resistance in both rural and urban areas. In this review essay, I address some of the key issues pertinent to the changing situation for working people in the recent past of the People’s Republic of China by focusing on three recently published books by Ching Kwan Lee, Carolyn Hsu, and Edward Friedman et al. I give greatest attenreview essay / note critique

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLabour / Le TravailSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207