Offshore Production, Labour Standards and Collective Organisation in the Globalizing U.S. Apparel Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a specific case of how changes across the international division of labour have impacted upon — and been contested by — the workers involved in commodity production. Cantin employs a long-term perspective, detailing the establishment of garment production in the US as a sweated industry in the early 1900s and the movements that were frequently successful at raising conditions across the industry in the subsequent decades. He then focuses on the ways in which various worker movements have challenged the effects of the deepening transnationalisation of garment production since the 1960s on their employment and working conditions. While the US garment industry has undergone a significant dissolution of jobs and a lowering of pay and conditions, Cantin examines how the experience of previous defeats inflicted on worker movements has led to a greater acknowledgement of workers of the necessity to mobilise on an international basis to complement and strengthen local forms of organisation. He suggests that these lessons are starting to lead to cautious yet important attempts to change the strategies pursued by organised labour in the North American garment industry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".