Scabs and Traitors: Taboo, Violence and Punishment in Labour Disputes in Britain, 1760–1871 by Thomas Lineham
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| March 01 2020 Scabs and Traitors: Taboo, Violence and Punishment in Labour Disputes in Britain, 1760–1871 by Thomas Lineham Scabs and Traitors: Taboo, Violence and Punishment in Labour Disputes in Britain, 1760–1871. Lineham, Thomas. New York: Routledge, 2018. xiv + 226 pp., £72.00 (cloth); £23.99 (paper) Douglas Hay Douglas Hay York University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Labor (2020) 17 (1): 150–151. https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-7962973 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter Email Permissions Search Site Citation Douglas Hay; Scabs and Traitors: Taboo, Violence and Punishment in Labour Disputes in Britain, 1760–1871 by Thomas Lineham. Labor 1 March 2020; 17 (1): 150–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-7962973 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter Books & JournalsAll JournalsLabor Search Advanced Search Thomas Lineham wants both to describe and defend, or at least make skeptics understand, the role of worker violence (a protean word) in eighteenth- and nineteenth- century labor disputes. He exploits primary sources like union publications and much secondary writing, framed by sociological theory. He is writing against a long tradition of labor historiography that either wholly ignored, deplored, minimized, or attributed to the “primitive” state of collective bargaining the rough justice dealt to scabs and to traitors, who broke solemn promises to their mates and crossed picket lines. The book moves from an analysis of verbal violence, through the ritualized humiliation of “rough music,” including stang-riding, tarring, half-drowning, stripping naked in public (often by women), and parading men with their coats reversed to signify turncoats. Finally, stone-throwing, savage beatings, threats with firearms, and the destruction of strikebreakers’ houses and household... Copyright © 2020 Labor and Working-Class History Association2020 Issue Section: Book Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.009 |
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".