On location: American capital and the local labour market in the Vancouver film industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article makes three contributions to the local labour market literature. Firstly, it provides an empirical example of the contours and dynamics of a unique local labour market. Secondly, it explores the degree to which the local labour market is shaped by external forces operating at the national and international scale. Thirdly, it considers the extent to which the local labour market can be conceptualized as a multi‐vocal social construct. These ideas are developed through a case study of union involvement in the Vancouver film industry. During the summer of 1997 there was a period of discord between the actors’ union in Vancouver, UBCP, and American producers, represented by the AMPTP. These tensions were exacerbated by the involvement of the Provincial Government, the local press and other vested interest groups. Using a variety of interview and documentary evidence, this dispute is used to illustrate the geographically specific and highly complex nature of local labour markets. Cet article réalise trois contributions aux travaux sur le marchré local du travail. Premièrement, il analyse un exemple empirique des contours et des dynamiques d’un marchré unique du travail local. Deuxièmement, l’auteur examine la contribution des forces externes (nationales et internationales) à l’organisation du marchré local du travail. Troisièmement, dans quelle mesure un marchré local du travail peut‐il étre conceptualisré comme une construction sociale à plusieurs discours? Ces points sont drévelopprés dans le cas d’rétude de la participation des syndicats dans l’industrie du film a Vancouver. Pendant l’rétré1997, il y eut une prériode de dissensions entre le syndicat des acteurs à Vancouver (UBCP) et les producteurs amréricains, reprrésentrés par l’AMPTP. Ces tensions rétaient aggravrées par la participation du gouvernement provincial, de la presse locale et d’autres groupes militants. A partir de diverses donnrées provenant d’entrevues et de documentation, ce conflit est utilisré pour illustrer la particularitré gréographique et la nature extrémement complexe des marchés locaux du travail.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".