MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046384314 · doi:10.1177/0020715220946074

Spinners or sitters? Regimes of social reproduction and urban Chinese workers’ employment choices

2020· article· en· W3046384314 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yige Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityAssociation for Asian Studies
KeywordsReproductionInformal sectorBusinessLabour economicsSocial reproductionService (business)RestructuringWelfarePosition (finance)Economic growthEconomicsSociologyMarket economyMarketingSocial capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite China being the world’s factory, its labor market is now primarily service-based with a high level of informality. When formal manufacturing and informal service sectors co-exist, how do workers make their choices? While existing literature focuses on rural migrant workers’ experience in the Chinese labor system, this study extends the analytical scope to low-skill urban workers. Drawing on archival, interview, and ethnographic data in a large industrial city in central China, I compare urban women’s different trajectories in textile manufacturing and informal domestic service. Building on labor regime studies and Social Reproduction Theory, I develop a framework called “regimes of social reproduction” to explain workers’ job choices. I argue that China’s post-socialist industrial restructuring has given rise to a public–private hybrid regime of social reproduction, which keeps workers’ pension and healthcare schemes in the public domain and pushes childcare, elderly care, and domestic work to the private sphere and then marketizes them. For urban workers, when choosing between formal manufacturing and informal service, it is their position within the regime of social reproduction that plays a decisive role. Their position is assessed along the following two dimensions: (1) the degree of a worker’s dependency on the employment-based welfare provisions and (2) the degree of demand for reproductive labor in a worker’s family. Challenging the conventional view that formal manufacturing jobs are more desirable than informal service jobs, I conclude that under the current regime of social reproduction, the booming informal service market may provide some best earning opportunities for low-skilled urban workers. However, the same regime has also set significant limits on such opportunities as these urbanites’ availability to work is highly contingent on (lack of) demand for reproductive labor from their own family.

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)0.001
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207