‘Timepass’ and ‘setting’: The meanings, relationships and politics of urban informal work in Delhi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The engagement of people in extremely low-wage work in major cities of the Global South and their withdrawal from labour-organising activities arise from several factors. Among these is the hegemonic meaning construction of work as ‘timepass’ or leisure and as an opportunity for sociality and neighbourliness that is central to the social reproduction of everyday life. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in Delhi, this article examines how work regimes are marked by a ‘commission economy’, whereby various stakeholders in the chain of surplus accumulation demand a commission for their services. The possibility of undertaking informal economic activities is contingent on a host of improvisations that are founded upon discipline, violence and also solidarity. In this respect, various stakeholders possess what they refer to as a ‘setting’, which alludes to an active process of economic and non-economic relationship-building with both state and non-state agencies within both formal and informal arenas. To ‘do setting’ is a dynamic spatial process that draws on negotiations with the aim of shaping favourable relationships and outcomes in particular urban spaces. It entails the use of social and cultural resources, everyday political negotiations and extra-judicial solutions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".