Corporatist discourse and heavy industry in Wilhelmine Germany: Factory culture and employer politics in the Saar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the decade before 1914, the central coordinates of factory culture and employer politics in the heavy industrial Saar entered into a process of transformation. In a marked departure from the familial metaphors and representations long associated with the paternalist factory regime in this region of coal mining and iron and steel production in southwest Germany, many Saar industrialists began to reimagine identities and the relations of factory production in distinctively corporatist terms. In their industry newspaper, journal publications, and internal reports after the turn of the century, they increasingly referred to a new social aristocracy of labor in the productive economy and a harmonious of work in the large-scale business enterprise. They also began to link these definitions of and identity to a larger imaginary that articulated a corporatist vision of a world composed of occupational estates (Berufsstande). In this new ideological idiom, Saar employers began to call for the political organization of a wider Occupational Estate of Industry and Trade (Gewerbe- und Handelsstand) and the formation of a corporative state (Standestaat). Accordingly, the language of Saar employers during the prewar years became corporatist in a dual sense: it articulated a worldview in a vocabulary that invoked forms of address, natural hierarchy, and community that seem reminiscent of the old regime corporate order; and it formed the basis of programmatic political aims calling for the direct representation of economic interests in the realm of party politics and the state. Until very recently, historians have interpreted the meaning of nineteenthand twentieth-century corporatist terminology in the context of debates about Germany's lack of modernity and the long-term origins of Nazism. Postwar in
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".