Bibliographic record
Abstract
The best thing about writing The Next Upsurge has been the discussions and debates it has helped generate, none more stimulating than these essays. I'm delighted that the reviewers are often enthusiastic and always generous. More important, these contributions address the key issues, not just of the book, but facing labor today. I welcome this opportunity to re-state and re-think my positions, in an attempt to do what these essays do so well: move the debate forward.\nIt was an inspired editorial idea to solicit contributions on the next upsurge as viewed from a European or Canadian perspective. The contributors thus have a twofold perspective on the issues: on the one hand, a set of criticisms, concerns, and disagreements that a US reader might bring to the task; on the other, a perspective gained by seeing what is similar and what is different in viewing these same ideas and analyses through a French, Belgian, British, or Canadian lens. We all face a capitalist neo-liberal system that is global and tightly inter-connected, but we do so on the basis of differing political arrangements, cultural formations, institutional structures, and histories of past struggle. Some part of the challenge we face is the same everywhere; some part varies from country to country (and also, of course, by gender, race, skill, age and a variety of other factors).\nI can't engage all the issues contributors raise, but will attempt to respond on five points, each of them raised by several contributors: fusion, the tension between democracy and leadership, my neglect of politics, the book's focus on marginal rather than skilled workers, and the meaning of an upsurge. It's also worth noting, however, what is largely omitted in these essays: race and (by the men) gender. Those issues are central to The Next Upsurge and to the US left; their importance in Europe is growing, and I strongly urge my European comrades to make them central to their analyses and political practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".