MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526119786 · doi:10.15173/glj.v7i3.2690

Capital as Subject: Global Value Chains Analysis and Labour Relations in India’s Auto Industry

2016· article· en· W2526119786 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tom Barnes, Krishna Shekhar Lal Das, Surendra Pratap

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Labour Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityScholarshipSubject (documents)MainstreamValue (mathematics)Capital (architecture)EconomicsAutomotive industryProduction (economics)Auto industryPolitical economySociologyLabour economicsMarket economyEconomic geographyEconomyPolitical scienceEconomic growthLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<strong></strong>It is widely recognised that labour has been downplayed in the literature on global value chains (GVCs) and global production networks (GPNs). While several scholars have tried to bring labour ‘back in’ to GVC research, others suggest this agenda does not go far enough and fails to challenge mainstream political and economic assumptions. This paper takes its cue from claims that labour is ‘co-constitutive’ in the development of GVCs/GPNs, using a case study of India’s rapidly-growing automotive industry. It goes further in arguing for a greater focus on capitalist subjectivity in the structure and organisation of GVCs. While the growing dialogue between global labour studies and GVC scholarship has emphasised labour subjectivity, there has been a tendency to underestimate the role of capital.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Labour JournalSame topicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impactFrench-language works237,207