Race you to the Bottom … and Back Again? The Uneven Development of Labour Codes of Conduct
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article emphasises how labour codes of conduct mediate a series of complex and evolving power relations that span the politics of consumption through to the politics of production. It argues that codes of conduct not only reflect an uneven division of labour – in which firms are stratified in size, productivity and labour conditions – but actively shape it. Using examples drawn from light-manufacturing industries in China, it illustrates how labour codes of conduct feed into these processes of uneven development. In their reaction to the implementation of codes of conduct across global supply chains, some Chinese suppliers at the higher tiers of industrial structure have sought to substitute capital for labour as a way to increase productivity beyond abusive labour conditions. Simultaneously, many smaller firms at lower tiers that are reliant on cut-throat forms of discounting have evolved elaborate schema of falsifying code of conduct processes and reports. Finally, mid-tier firms tend to display a strategically partial degree of compliance. Code provisions that empower workers to self-organise are commonly undermined because such trends threaten the very political basis upon which the restructuring the global division of labour over the past four decades has been predicated.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it