MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966189352 · doi:10.1353/lab.2005.0093

Black Workers' Struggle for Equality in Birmingham (review)

2005· article· en· W1966189352 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan W. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueLabor Studies Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Black Workers' Struggle for Equality in Birmingham Susan W. Thomas Black Workers' Struggle for Equality in Birmingham. Edited by Horace Huntley and David Montgomery. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2004. 244 pp. $35 hardback. A compilation of seventeen oral interviews gleaned from the Oral History Project of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, Black Workers' Struggle for Equality in Birmingham supplements the increasing number of historical works focusing on the link between civil rights and labor activism. The selected interviews provide a personal view of the city's black working class history as they emphasize the ways in which labor organizing benefited them in the workplace and beyond. With few exceptions, the interviews highlight workers' realization that "the Civil Rights Movement would not have been able to do a lot of things . . . had it not been for the labor movement." Although Birmingham has a well-known history of activism during the decades of the Civil Rights Movement, the purpose here is to uncover the hidden history of black workers who organized in the workplace and battled racism on all fronts. David Montgomery provides an analytical twenty-five page overview of the formation of the black working class in Birmingham, a post-bellum industrial city that drew poor whites and blacks into the mines and factories throughout the early twentieth century. Carefully examining the connections between black workers' activism and their concurrent participation in the struggle for racial equality in the wider community, Montgomery outlines the development of the city's industrial base and the role of legally sanctioned segregation in defining black lives. While Montgomery's introduction is useful for placing the interviews in historical context, the accounts themselves are valuable for providing a fresh perspective on how black workers understood their own lives. The editors preface each interview with brief biographical remarks and provide useful footnotes for clarification, when necessary. Many of the interviews focus on the significance of the black church (particularly in relation to the work of Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth) as a source of spiritual support in the fight against discrimination and for civil rights. Several interviewees indicate that their involvement in the church either ignited their consciousness to the cause of civil rights or enabled them to bring their rights consciousness borne in the workplace to their neighborhoods. Although the title indicates that these will be remembrances of life and work in Birmingham, a number of those interviewed provide information about conditions in other large cities, including Chicago. In addition, not all of those whose interviews appear were blacks. Eula McGill, a well-known white union organizer and activist, explains in her own words the rationale [End Page 118] for including her interview in this volume: "We had to fight for our Civil Rights. So many people think Civil Rights are just black rights. Civil Rights are everybody's rights. They are human rights." Accessible to a broad audience, Black Workers' Struggle for Equality in Birmingham will prove useful as a resource in undergraduate labor history courses and for students seeking easy access to compelling documentary evidence of the close ties between black workers' participation in labor organizing and their battle for civil rights. Montgomery's analytical introduction will benefit all who are concerned with issues of race and labor. Susan W. Thomas University of North Carolina Copyright © 2006 the West Virginia University Press, for the United Association for Labor Studies

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLabor Studies JournalSame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207