MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408210769 · doi:10.1017/s0305741024001577

Little to Lose: Exit Options and Attitudes towards Automation in Chinese Manufacturing

2025· article· en· W4408210769 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Wu, Zhongwei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe China Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsStatus quoAutomationWorryBusinessLabour economicsChinaOutsourcingWork (physics)MarketingDemographic economicsEconomicsAnxietyPolitical scienceEngineeringPsychologyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent discussions on the future of work emphasize the negative effects of labour-replacing technology on employment and wages. However, original surveys and field research show that Chinese manufacturing workers currently consider themselves the beneficiaries of technological upgrading. This paper presents quantitative and qualitative evidence from two original surveys of over 2,400 workers and 600 companies in the manufacturing sector, interviews with firm managers and workers from 76 companies, and 34 factory visits in 19 cities in southern China. It finds that insofar as labourers experience automation anxiety, local workers are more likely than internal migrant workers to worry about technological displacement and are more pessimistic about their prospects of securing comparable employment after displacement. Owing to the features and consequences of the household registration system, internal migrants have a larger set of acceptable exit options that are no worse than their status quo, contributing to their lower anxiety about automation compared to locals. These findings suggest that automation susceptibility does not directly translate into automation opposition as previously assumed; institutions can shape technological receptiveness among people who face similar threats of automation by altering their exit options.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe China QuarterlySame topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207