Circulating Race and Empire: Transnational Labor Activism and the Politics of Anti-Asian Agitation in the Anglo-American Pacific World, 1880-1910
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 1907, labor leaders and activists from across the Pacific Northwest converged on the city of Tacoma for the annual convention of the Washington Federation of Labor. At the gathering, they discussed and debated issues related to the social and material welfare of the region's working class. The conference attracted, in addition to its U.S. contingent, a number of participants from across the border. One of the convention speakers, the Canadian delegate M. A. Beach, representing the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council, spoke on the collective experiences and aspirations of the region's working class, explaining how they transcended the boundaries of the nation-state. In his remarks, Beach told the audience that he felt “quite at home here, in your beautiful city, in fact have spent a number of years on this side of the imaginary boundary line. I say, imaginary boundary line, because I suppose from a national standpoint we are divided, but from a wage-earners' standpoint we are not divided.” He claimed that American and Canadian laborers were “brothers working for a common cause … bettering conditions for the wage-earner,” and insisted to the largely American audience that “what is good for you is good for me, and what is good for me is good for you.”1
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".