MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621372043 · doi:10.1111/dech.12315

Labour Regime Transformation in Myanmar: Constitutive Processes of Contestation

2017· article· en· W2621372043 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dennis Arnold, Stephen Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Change · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsHegemonyCapital (architecture)Government (linguistics)SituatedPolitical economyTransformation (genetics)Political scienceEconomic systemEconomicsSociologyLawPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article studies the case of a workers’ strike in Myanmar's ready‐made garment sector to illustrate how differently‐situated actors have engaged at multiple scales to influence emerging forms of labour regulation in the country. The analysis is drawn out through the historicization of domestic regulatory transformation. As a hegemonic project targeting industrial peace for purposes of capital accumulation, Myanmar's labour regime has been shaped by various actors outside of government circles, including International Labour Organization (ILO) personnel, Myanmar trade unionists, foreign governments, transnational corporations, domestic capitalists and Myanmar workers. Proposing a multi‐scalar reading of labour regime transformation attentive to constitutive processes of contestation, the study analyses ways in which varied, and at times unofficial, relations coalesce to shape labour regulation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and ChangeSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207