MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525039642 · doi:10.15173/glj.v7i3.2500

The Power of Disruptive Protest in Driving Reform: Explaining the Failed case of Labour in Malaysia

2016· article· en· W2525039642 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lilian Miles, Richard Croucher

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Labour Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterdependenceOpposition (politics)AuthoritarianismIndustrialisationPoliticsPolitical economyPower (physics)DemocracySociologyState (computer science)Working classEconomicsPolitical scienceMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reflect upon Malaysian labour’s efforts in advocating reform. Its actions to focus political attention on labour issues at the 2013 general election are analysed. Although the election presented a rare opportunity for labour to bring workers’ issues to centre stage, it did not do so. Piven’s theory of “interdependent” power provides a useful lens through which labour’s failure can be analysed. We show the enormous challenges preventing Malaysian labour from activating “interdependent” power. Critically, the state has systematically maintained artificial distinctions to divide working people from each other and fragment them as a class. The use of state force to crush opposition elements and its employment of highly discriminatory industrialisation policies have additionally militated against labour's efforts to mobilise as a class to secure reform. Piven's theory likely has limited applicability in these authoritarian and non-liberal contexts.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.029
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Labour JournalSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207