MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119533124 · doi:10.1177/0896920508101501

Globalization, Downsizing and Insecurity: Do We Need to Upgrade Marx's Theory of Alienation?

2009· article· en· W2119533124 on OpenAlexaff
W. Peter Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Sociology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlienationGlobalizationEconomic systemEconomicsSociologyPolitical economyLabour economicsPolitical scienceMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earlier, this author investigated and found wanting popular claims that technical and social organizational changes associated with globalization have now greatly lessened alienation for factory workers in fully industrialized countries. Here he follows up his suggestion that any credible account of globalization must consider increased competition and employment insecurity and their effects upon alienation. Theoretically, decreased security could have made workers more concerned with having any employment at all and less with intrinsically interesting work over which they have control. Nevertheless, research on the 1930s and the current period of downsizing provides much more support for decreased security having further disempowered workers. Demands at work may well have increased more for managers and professionals, but they have also had greater resources for coping with such increased demands. While these new developments suggest that Marx's theory of alienation needs to be updated, they are consistent with its original thrusts.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.060
Scholarly communication0.0070.019
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical SociologySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207