Bibliographic record
Abstract
Film guilds and unions engage in collective bargaining on behalf of media workers in the United States and around the world. Historically, the word “guild” was associated with craft and professional training, but in the US film industry it is often interchangeable with “union.” The exception to this rule is the Producers Guild of America (PGA), which is a professional organization that maintains professional standards and provides its members with networking opportunities. In Hollywood, unions also exist alongside craft organizations such as the American Society of Cinematographers, which help to advance the art and establish professional norms, but do not negotiate wages or provide health and retirement benefits. Some film unions (such as those in the United States, Canada, and England) are historically more well established, in contrast to nations where production is not unionized or unionization has only recently begun. Film unions and guilds in the United States, which include the Directors Guild of America (DGA), the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), SAG-AFTRA (the union that represents screen performers), and the Writers Guild of America (WGA), have been the most well-studied. Since the first Studio Basic Agreement in 1926, unions have contributed to the professional development and well-being of Hollywood workers, but they have historically been marginal institutions within cinema and media scholarship. There has been abundant writing on union activities in journalistic sources and union magazines, all of which are essential reading for scholars of film guilds and unions. Those looking for scholarship on unions and guilds will need to read across disciplines, as the work on film guilds and unions is methodologically diverse and comes from labor historians and political economists of communication, in addition to cinema and media scholars.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.005 |
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".