The Labor of Cultural Conception and Uncertainty in Cultural Work: The Work of Korean Drama Writers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores writers’ labor and precarity in the drama production sector of the South Korean television industry. In particular, to examine what is often referred to as creative labor, I suggest the concept of the labor of cultural conception, which I define as the labor of imagining, conceiving, and developing ideas and expressing them through language in the production process of cultural and symbolic products. For this research, in 2018 and 2019, I conducted in-depth interviews with 20 research participants who produced dramas airing on broadcasters and cable channels in South Korea. The findings show that the industry structurally accumulates value from writers’ unpaid labor of cultural conception in planning a television drama show by offloading risks to writers and using a piecework pay system. Writers also suffer from pressures, anxiety, and stress because they are required to generate ideas and write scripts according to shooting and editing cycles and rhythms. I argue that applying the concept of labor of cultural conception clarifies the distinctive forms of precarity and exploitation that workers face in cultural industries.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".