Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last chapter examined the discovery of unemployment, tracing its formation as a conceptual object. This chapter deals with roughly the same time period, but begins to trace the construction of unemployment as an object of regulation. It does this in two stages. First, through a consideration of some of the most significant political programmes which, in competition with one another, sought to define the terms of a modern policy for unemployment. These programmes help to demarcate the field of possible ways of acting on unemployment. The relation between this field and the famous Liberal social legislation of the 1908–14 period is discussed. Second, as a way of demonstrating the strengths of a governmentality approach to social policy questions, a seemingly mundane administrative device is analysed: the labour exchange. Its significance lies not just with the fact that it brings a new regime of routine and comprehensive visibility to unemployment and the labour market. The labour exchange is also interesting as a prism through which to view new relationships of citizenship, power, and knowledge which take shape at the start of this century. These relations will be key features of welfare state governance. THREE PROGRAMMES FOR GOVERNING UNEMPLOYMENT I have explained how unemployment becomes an object of theoretical controversy. It is of course at the same time a site of political argumentation. Since political discourse is a powerful factor in establishing the horizon for what is thinkable in terms of policies, here I want to survey the main political programmes addressing unemployment at the turn of the century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".