The Feminization and Racialization of Labour in the Colombian Fresh-cut Flower Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the basic features of the working and living conditions of the mostly female labour force of the Colombian flower industry. It argues that in this export industry, critical feminist thought on neo-liberal international trade and the feminization of labour is valid only for workers in the lowest ranks of the industry, the majority of whom are racialized women from low-income, peasant, indigenous, or mixed-race rural backgrounds who face precarious forms of labour. Meanwhile, an elite group of women from urban-middle and upper classes with Western education and European or mixed-race backgrounds work in management, participate in the growers’ associations and oversee the exploitative conditions and health risks that flower production creates for their racialized lower class ‘sisters’. This case emphasizes the importance of considering the intersections of socio-economic status and race, together with gender and other structures, in order to determine who benefits and loses from production for the global market. The article also introduces the concept of ‘racialization of labour’, arguing that the jobs created in the industry are not only feminized but racialized.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".