MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319519573

Reality TV’s Low-Wage and No-Wage Work

2016· article· en· W2319519573 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tanner Mirlees

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternate routes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudioReality televisionExploitProfit (economics)Work (physics)Augmented realityReality tvWageProduction (economics)Virtual realityInternshipWorkforceBusinessLabour economicsAdvertisingComputer scienceEconomicsSociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringLawMedia studiesTelecommunicationsComputer securityArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In keeping with this issue of Alternate Routes’ focus on forms of low-waged and no-waged work, this article focuses on low-waged and non-waged work in the reality TV production sector. How do reality-TV studios try to maximize profits by keeping the costs of making their commodities to a minimum, and how does the push for profit disorganize and devalue labour? This article contextualizes and critiques how reality TV studios try to maximize profits by minimizing production costs in three sections. “Reality TV Producers: Work Behind the Scenes” shows how reality TV’s classification as “non-scripted” programming enables production companies to exploit a non-unionized workforce. “Reality TV Celebrities: Work in the Scenes” highlights how reality TV production companies exploit the no-waged labour of “contestant-participants.” “Reality TV Interns: Work Behind the Scenes, and In Them” shows how studios use internship programs to get workers to make reality TV programs without pay and how some of these programs glorify no-waged work. The article concludes on a more optimistic note with an overview of reality-TV worker challenges to reality-TV’s owners with unionization, strikes, litigation, publicity and discourse.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlternate routesSame topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207