MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016574736 · doi:10.15173/glj.v4i2.1135

Solidarity Formations Under Flexibilisation: Workplace Struggles of Precarious Migrants in Thailand

2013· article· en· W2016574736 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Labour Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityLivelihoodScholarshipSociologyEthnographyWagePolitical economyCollective bargainingWage labourCapitalismPolitical scienceLabour economicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent scholarship on precarious labour has called attention to global transformations in employment regimes, which have given management greater freedom in setting the terms of work. Such ‘flexibility’ in employment is associated with a decrease in work, wage and livelihood security; more temporary, rather than open-ended, job contracts; a roll-back of employment benefits; heavy restrictions on workers’ collective organisation; and a greater reliance on migrant labour. To date, scholars have mostly emphasised the negative impact this transformation has had on workers’ solidarity. However, as this article highlights, flexibilisation can also function as an enabler of solidarity. Presenting an ethnographic case study of a workplace struggle at an export processing zone in northwest Thailand, it is argued that where flexible labour regimes incite shared grievances among workers and occlude the representative role of trade unions officials, they have facilitated self-organised struggles among workers based on a clear sense of common cause.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Labour JournalSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207