Labour-centred Politics and Judicial Institutionalisation: The Lineaments of an Early Proto-Regulatory State Model in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australia, since the early 1980s, has been a leading advocate and practitioner of the neo-liberal economic model, also known as the Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-American) model due to its geographical origins in the UK and the US, and its subsequent ascendancy in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, prior to its global hegemony (Bayari 2012a). A major component of this model has been the deregulatory market policies that have come to dominate all aspects of life. There are prior discussions of Australia’s deregulation dogmas and practices that this paper does not cover (Bayari 2012c, Bayari 2012d). Interestingly, Australia was a pioneer of a proto-regulatory economic model at the turn of the twentieth century. The emergence of the federal state in Australia in 1901 led to a level of hitherto unseen level of intervention in the market. Australia, like Canada, the US and New Zealand inherited the political, legal and other institutions of the UK. However, the Australian state followed a different path by regulating capital and labour relationship through the enforcement of compulsory conciliation and arbitration (Bayari 2012b). This proto-regulatory state model of the Antipodes preceded the post-Second World War regulatory state in the West by decades. The 1941-1949 Labor governments, under John Curtin and Ben Chifley, created new institutions for welfare, and health care provision, and attempted to create a new society, such as in terns of defining the content of citizenship, and creating the notion of entitlement to non-market wage, while the governments of the period from thereafter until 1972 can be characterised as calculatingly inert.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".