4 “ to promote the universal values of human dignity,” a roadmap
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE OF SCREENINGIt is impor tant to properly screen persons referred as trafficking victims to service delivery organizations for assistance to ensure that they are in fact trafficking victims and not smuggled or other irregular mi grants, or other individuals in an abusive or vulnerable situation who may be in need of assistance and/or protection.Furthermore, care should be taken to assess whether the presumed victim is in fact not a victim of trafficking or someone in need of assistance, but someone actually trying to infiltrate the service organization for other motives. -iom, The iom Handbook on Direct Assistance for Victims of TraffickingAfter the Japanese government enacted its Action Plan in 2005, Japan was removed from the US tip Report's Tier 2 Watch List.However, Japan's Tier 2 tip Report ranking persisted in 2005 and 2006, to the Japanese government's chagrin.By 2007, when Japan was once again ranked at Tier 2, the Japanese government had had enough.Other countries considered highly industrializedincluding Canada, all of western and northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and even South Korea, Hong Kong, and Malawi-were ranked at Tier 1. 1 The Japanese government firmly believed that it had met the minimum standards for a top tier ranking.It made its frustration clear to the US State Department, 4 " to promote the universal values of human dignity, " a roadmap arguing that the tip Report was "biased and unfair" and threatening to withhold cooperation with the United States on future issues.2 The US State Department now faced another diplomatic bind.The researchers and grassroots organizations in Japan that debriefed the US embassy in Tokyo for the tip Report's Japan country narrative maintained that the Japanese government was not adequately recognizing victims of human trafficking and questioned its victim identification procedures.3 They asserted that Japanese government statistics underestimated the actual number of trafficking victims in the country.4 Yet the Japanese government resisted this assessment.It demanded that the US State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (hereafter the tip Office) clearly explain its evaluation criteria and give assurances that meeting those criteria would result in a top tier ranking the following year.The United States has long viewed Japan as a key ally with shared economic and security interests.5 Strained US-Japan relations over tip Report rankings was undesirable.To resolve the diplomatic tension, a meeting was quickly called between representatives from the Japanese government's Inter-Ministerial Task Force on Combating Trafficking and Mark Lagon, then the US tip Office's director.6 At the meeting, in a gesture of support and encouragement, Lagon provided a document-what later US embassy cables baldly referred to as the "Roadmap to Tier 1" (hereafter the Roadmap)-prescribing the steps the Japanese government needed to take to achieve a Tier 1 tip Report ranking.Following the Japanese government's further request for more detailed instruction, the Roadmap was subsequently appended by a "clarification memo" that included explicit benchmarks against which Japan would be evaluated the next year and offered specific guidelines for victim identification protocols, in large part adopted from the recently published iom Handbook on Direct Assistance for Victims of Trafficking (hereafter the iom Handbook).7 The tip Office representatives explained to the Japanese government that by following the outlined procedures in the memo, as well as working toward ultimately ratifying the un Trafficking Protocol, the Japanese government could come into compliance with US tvpa standards and receive a Tier 1 tip Report ranking the following year.8 According to a US embassy cable, when Lagon presented the Roadmap to the Japanese del e ga tion, he explained that the tip Report was written "in a spirit of partnership" and that the United States was committed to working closely with Japan, "not to export American morality, but to promote the universal values of human dignity."9 This chapter explores what official guidelines like the Roadmap, the clarification memo, and the iom Handbook on which the two are based accomplish "to
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».