Porters and Portage as Formal and Informal Labour: Isparta Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that portage, an occupation as old as human history, remains to be a traditional profession despite technological developments. It is observed that today this occupation has undergone changes in accordance with the conditions of the time, and has become an occupation preferred by unqualified workers and immigrants who migrate to big cities from rural areas as a consequence of urbanization. On the other hand, since portage is unattractive in terms of social prestige and porters are considered to be at the “very bottom” in the hierarchal chain of work life; this community of workers, which constitute a certain part of social mechanism and division of labour, are not recognized enough in the social order. On the overall, this study aims to discuss the activities of the labour force outside the formal economy controlled by the government, and introduce an overview of the employment that is not reflected or completely taken into account in the statistics. The identity of porters, the reasons of why portage is preferred as an occupation, or the socio-economical conditions that create portage as an occupation are analysed from a sociological perspective. The meaning or meanings that correspond to portage as an occupation, the socio-economical situation of the labour force working as porters, and the problems they experience in the face of technological developments are evaluated over the example of Isparta and in accordance with the results obtained from the field study conducted with porters who work in head-end business and discharge
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".