Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Labor market processes in sites of peripheral capitalism are all too frequently represented as the straightforward exploitation of abundant, cheap, and place‐bound labor by space‐controlling international capital. Extensive literatures exist that deal with national regimes of labor regulation and the subjugated subjectivities of workers in locations of rapid industrialization in the developing world. The complex regulating institutions operating at a local scale in such sites have not, however, received the same sensitive attention as labor markets in the industrialized world, on which research has advanced considerably in recent years. In this paper I seek to address that discrepancy by focusing on the institutions and actors involved in creating a local labor control regime in a site of rapid industrialization in the Philippines. These include the national state, corporate investors, individual workers, industrial estate management companies, recruitment agencies, village and community leaders, municipal officials, provincial governments, and labor organizations. In exploring the relationship between these various players I develop two arguments. First, the relationship embodied in the labor process of newly industrializing spaces cannot be conceived simply as an antagonism between “global” capital and “local” labor. Instead, the wide range of local players described here act to mediate that relationship and to embed specific global capitals in a local political economy of power relations. Second, these localized relationships often exist outside of formal regulatory institutions, and indeed may directly contravene them. In this way the mechanisms employed in the local labor control regime are frequently more informal, more fluid, and more geographically variable than an analysis of formal regulatory institutions would reveal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".