MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179117816 · doi:10.3828/lhr.2015.6

The First-and-a-half International: The Knights of Labor and the History of International Labour Organization in the Nineteenth Century

2015· article· en· W2179117816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven Parfitt

Bibliographic record

VenueLabour History Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)InstitutionSubject (documents)Long nineteenth centuryLabor historyLabor relationsNarrativeWorld historyEconomic historySociologyPolitical scienceHistoryLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American labour historians have long considered the Order of the Knights of Labor to be one of the most important labour organizations of the late nineteenth century. Yet they have tended to view the Knights as an exclusively American, and perhaps also a Canadian, order. This article argues that the Knights of Labor must be considered as an international and not merely North American institution. This also has implications for the history of international labour organizations, a subject which is almost exclusively concerned with European bodies. In view of the Knights’ activities outside North America, this history must be altered, if not necessarily overturned, if we place the Knights in the history of international labour organization. This article first integrates the Knights within the chronological narrative of international labour organization. It then compares the Order with other international labour institutions of the nineteenth century. In the process, it argues that the Knights of Labor should...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLabour History ReviewSame topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207