Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the golden era of capitalism was primarily national, the last decade of the twentieth century saw a greatly increased transnationalization of economic, political, social and cultural relations. This led to a new era of globalization, which has had a decisive impact on workers worldwide, although much of the flourishing globalization literature seems to ignore the role of workers on the whole. This chapter seeks not only to introduce some of the major parameters of this new great transformation but also to explore its limits and contradictions from a labour perspective. A fundamental thesis is that workers and the workers’ movement are, and will become, increasingly central to the new globalizing capitalist order. Capitalism is being reconstructed but so too are the world of work and the organizations of workers, as I show in the section on the new global labour force. I examine in particular the increased flexibility and feminization of this new global labour force. The final section on the global social movements explores the extent to which globalization has created the conditions for a new social movement for workers worldwide. A new great transformation Globalization, whether viewed as a panacea for the new century or demonized as the source of all our evils, had become the new “common sense” for our era from around 2000. In a relatively short period of time the term “globalization” spread across academic disciplines, spawned multiple research centres and generated a vigorous counter-movement. It is a most labile term, fluid and slippery in its meaning and its political implications. As a starting point we could do worse than Paul Drache’s (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) conclusion that “[t]he simple truth is that one-third of the globalization narrative is over-sold, one-third we do not understand because it is a process unfolding and one-third is radically new” (Drache 1999: 7). Globalization appeared as a new grand meta-narrative, just as we were being told that the meta-narratives of labour and socialism were dead. It is presented in much of the academic literature – not to mention more popular outlets – as a homogeneous, irreversible and all-encompassing process.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".