Manufacturing Change: A Two-Country, Three- Industry Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are three broad explanations for why workers adapt, or fail to adapt, to technological change in the workplace. The adversarial perspective holds that employment security produces resistant workers, and conversely that insecurity assures efficiency in adapting a workforce to technological and organizational changes. Institutionalists argue the opposite, emphasizing that secure workers have little to fear from change. Finally, a neo-corporatist variant sees managers and powerful trade-union leaders as capable of successfully negotiating industrial changes, independently of rank and file preferences. In this paper we explore these explanations via interview data collected from managers and trade unionists (or labour representatives) from Canada and Sweden. Our focus is on three industries - pulp and paper, steel and telecommunications equipment. Analyses deal with specific questions associated with the introduction of new equipment and technology, attempts to introduce organizational restructuring, and experiences with layoffs. We further examine respondents' comments on obstacles encountered during the change process, including the reactions, conflicts and grievances of the rank and file workers at their plants, mills and factories. On the whole, the results of our interviews with respondents at seventy-three plants in our three-industry two-country comparison seem to contradict the strict adversarial theory. While our data provide some evidence in favour of the institutionalist perspective, the neo-corporatist arguments found the most support. Swedish trade union leaders were viewed by managers, and viewed themselves, as more positively disposed to change than either their Canadian counterparts or workers in either country
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".