Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original framework for this project was conceived while I walked a picket line during a seventy-eight-day strike undertaken by teaching assistants, contract faculty, and graduate assistants (cupe Local 3903) at York University, a strike that began on 26 October 2000 and ended in early January 2001.Writing is a much more solitary process than walking a picket line, of course, and while I constructed the outline of the project during picket shifts and in between strike support duties, the actual research and writing for this book took place over the course of a number of years following the resolution of that strike.But, like participating in the strike, I found working on this project to be a collaborative process.I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many people who directly and indirectly contributed to the development of this text.Norene Pupo was an exceptional supervisor throughout my doctoral program and has been a supportive mentor and colleague in the years since.Pat Armstrong and David McNally provided much-needed input, guidance, and support as the project developed.Along with essential feedback at all stages of the project, all three also provided inspiring examples of the ways in which academic work can be made relevant to communities outside the university.I am very fortunate to have many other colleagues in the fi eld of labour studies from whom I have drawn support, energy, and inspiration as the writing of this work progressed.Special thanks to David Camfi eld, Wayne Lewchuk, Robert O'Brien, Steve Tufts, Leah Vosko, Don Wells, Charlotte Yates, the members of the Toronto Labour Studies Group, and all the "new voices" in Canadian labour studies.I would also like to thank Robin Smith and Daphne Paszterko
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.560 | 0.354 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".