MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991418242 · doi:10.1353/lab.2004.0045

Hidden Knowledge: Organized Labor in the Information Age (review)

2004· article· en· W1991418242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim Scipes

Bibliographic record

VenueLabor Studies Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifelong learningWageEthnographySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceManagementLawEconomicsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Hidden Knowledge: Organized Labor in the Information Age Kim Scipes Hidden Knowledge: Organized Labor in the Information Age. By D.W. Livingstone and Peter H. Sawchuk . Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 2003. 309 pp. $36.00 (CDN), $29.95 (US). The issue of workers' role in the increasingly "knowledge-based" economy and the necessity to create a "lifelong learning culture" in every workplace have been the focus of official studies in industrialized countries around the world over the past ten to fiteen years. These studies, as Livingstone and Sawchuk write, "impl[y] that most workers suffer from a deficit of necessary skills and knowledge which must be rectified by greater education and training efforts." This book details a sophisticated study that explicitly challenges these assumptions. Working with Canadian unions, the authors conducted in-depth ethnographic interviews with workers in five different industries: auto, chemical, college, small-parts sector (automobile components), and garments. The sites vary not only by industrial sector, but also by wage level, training, managerial practices, employment situation, and union strength. The study has four strengths in its methodology. First, the authors recognize informal training that takes place on the job, and thus refuse to limit their understanding of learning to formal education, whether in the classroom or in the workplace. Second, their research provides both [End Page 119] worker and management perspectives, and contrasts these two clearly. Third, the project itself was designed to provide feedback to workers and help their unions become more aware of how workers learn, and how this knowledge could be used to strengthen their unions. And fourth, this study had an explicit learning theory base—CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory)—through which Livingstone and Sawchuk build a rich picture of how workers actually learn. CHAT sees learning as a collective process that actively takes place within specific historical and cultural social processes; in other words, learning is not individualized, is not simply provided to workers, but rather takes place in economic sectors and workplaces that have a specific historical context and resulting cultural understanding by workers. CHAT focuses on the power-determined processes of formal education, and contrasts them with how workers respond using their own work- and community-based learning communities to generate their own learning counter-power. In many ways, the book is a paean to workplace activists, particularly those in unions. The ethnographic accounts report what workers say about their work, their companies, their training, their workplace situations, and provide a rich understanding of the knowledge that almost all workers develop in the workplace. It also introduces those of us outside Canada to some Canadian working-class history as well as to the economic changes taking place there. As the authors conclude, this study reveals "highly active learners who face serious barriers to applying much of their current skill and knowledge in their paid workplaces, formal educational settings and civil society generally. In fact, working people are far more likely to be underemployed in their jobs than to be underqualified for them." Despite the excellence of the study, I have a minor dissatisfaction. The authors primarily focus on direct skills learning for the workplace, with no real consideration of how workers learn in a political-economic-cultural environment where much of the information is "mediated" by the mass media, the government, or the corporation. Thus workers are challenged to reflect on their direct skills acquisition in the workplace, but not on understanding the social order in which their workplace is located and their unions must operate. Nonetheless, Hidden Knowledge is an excellent study that I highly recommend; in my opinion, it should be read by anyone doing or planning to provide worker education, whether in the union or in the academy. Copyright © 2004 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)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLabor Studies JournalSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207