Augmented Exploitation: Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Vallas and Schor conclude that power asymmetry rather than horizontal democracy has so far been the experience of workers.
“Vallas and Schor reference a large number of studies on working conditions for appworkers (see the more recent Moore and Woodstock 2021), and conclude that power asymmetry rather than horizontal democracy has so far been the experience of workers.”
From Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences (2024) · cites this paper as Moore and Woodstock 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences
Deranty, J.-P., & Corbin, T. (2024) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01496-x · Cited by 118 · see citing works
“Vallas and Schor reference a large number of studies on working conditions for app-workers (see the more recent Moore and Woodstock 2021), and conclude that power asymmetry rather than horizontal democracy has so far been the experience of workers.”
- Venue
- Pluto Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Pluto Press
- Published
- 2021-03-20
- OpenAlex
- W4239885411
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8
- FWCI
- 5.50
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pluto Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Extractivism and Socioeconomic Issues
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
- Keywords
- exploitation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
