Does the ‘Infoproletariat’ Include Systems Analysts? Organising IT Workers in the Brazilian Banking Sector: Challenges and Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As labour struggles around the impact of technology on working conditions heat up across various countries and sectors, myriad studies argue that the technologically based restructuring of workplaces has contributed to increasing precariousness in the new world of work. However, technology workers themselves have often been assessed as resistant to collective organising. This article explores the work experiences of IT workers in Brazil’s banking industry, many of whom are the most sought-after workers in the country — but who, from their own testimonies, confront a range of conditions that could form a basis for strong collective action. We analyse how technology work is organised within the largest private banks operating in the country and reflect on workers’ actual experiences, based on dozens of in-depth interviews, survey responses, and secondary literature. Our primary research objective is to better understand the scope of obstacles confronted by financial sector technology workers in Brazil, wherein may lie the potential for future collective action.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it