Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on vignettes of the contested nature of change at work in a context of globalization, this article presents four contending narratives of this relationship. It argues that such frames open up or close down the possibility for actors to envisage the evolution of work and employment. The first two (overdetermined convergence and the crisis of capitalism) limit our understanding of important features of the processes underway. A third (balancing the economic and the social) opens up more space for varied outcomes and social choices, but is faulted for its problematical assumptions about social engineering and institutional trade-offs. A fourth frame focused on actor capacity and power offers the most interesting analytical avenues for the development of research. Four consequences are envisaged for the development of a research agenda: first, a focus on four types of fault line of deep societal change (internationalization of economic relations, the reorganization of production, the gender contract and decent, socially useful and healthy work) and the intersections of these fault lines; second, identifying and tracking the articulations and hierarchies between sources and sites of social regulation; third, studying the decline and revitalization of existing actors and the emergence of new actors and their capacities and power; finally, making research on work and employment matter through values, a proximity to social actors and a normative dialogue with change.
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 | 0.040 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.078 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".