MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890389139 · doi:10.1177/0022185618792990

Raciolinguistics and the aesthetic labourer

2018· article· en· W2890389139 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Relations · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmotional Labor in Professions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYRace (biology)Privilege (computing)SalientSociologyWhite privilegeAestheticsField (mathematics)Gender studiesLinguisticsPolitical scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Select studies on aesthetic labour explore how race becomes a component in ‘looking good’ for customers. However, there is little mention of how race is also salient in ‘sounding right’. This article addresses this issue by exploring the impact of race on the vocal demands placed on aesthetic labourers. Using raciolinguistics, a field that investigates the interconnections between language and race, the article specifically notes how two sites of language-focused aesthetic labour, English language teaching and Indian call centres, reinforce conceptions of sounding right that privilege Whiteness. A review of the literature from these sites highlights how looking good and sounding right constitute one another. Indeed, while a White body in English language teaching signifies nativeness/clarity in English, Indian call centre agents make themselves look better in the minds of western callers by ‘whitening’ their voices. These examples act as a call to simultaneously examine the racialized body and voice in future aesthetic labour research.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.306 · 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