Hidden Hands: International Perspectives on Children's Work and Labour. (Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Phillip Mizen, Christopher Pole and Angela Boldten, eds., Hidden Hands: International Perspectives on Children's Work and Labour. New York, Routledge Farmer, 2001. The phrase is commonly associated with exploitation, poverty, and deprivation. Most citizens of the West would argue that paid employment of children threatens healthy development, represents a violation of children's rights, and should be abolished. In fact, the majority of children in industrialized countries do work. In Canada, at least half of all young people aged 15 to 19 combine full or part time work with school, and it has been estimated that on average these minors spend 50-60 hours a week in all between academic and paid work (Tyyska, 2001). Hidden Hands is a collection of papers, many of which were presented in 1999 at a one-day conference at the University of Warwick. This slim volume, edited by Mizen, Pole and Boldten, contains eleven cutting edge contributions on the nature and impact of children's work in Britain, Germany, Norway, Russia and the Unites States. Although the work of children has existed in these countries for hundreds of years, it only began to capture the attention of researchers in the last decade, in part because of an increased interest in children's rights. This book contains a range of offerings, including reviews of the literature and original qualitative and quantitative research. Not only does Hidden Hands do an excellent job of representing the diversity of methodologies in this emerging area of study, it highlights the various debates that dominate the literature. The book identifies important and provocative issues for scholars, policy makers and practitioners in Youth Protection and Education. Some of the questions raised by this collection include the following: Should child labour be abolished and would this really benefit the young people who work? Are work and schooling mutually exclusive? Is work always a negative experience? Can child workers contribute to the family income without sacrificing their development? Has, in fact, a pejorative view of child labour on the part of social service workers and the legal system disadvantaged working children beyond their personal circumstances? Among the most compelling positions set forward by these authors, is that child labour has been hidden in Western societies because we have tended to romanticize childhood, choosing to view it as a period of carefree dependency. Because of socially constructed notions, the productivity of children has been rendered invisible. This, in turn, marginalises working children and exposes them to unregulated and poor working conditions. It also has resulted in harsh treatment by youth court judges and social workers. There is ample evidence cited in this collection that child labour can be a positive experience, both for children and their families, and that, most often, it represents a choice on the part of the child worker. …
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,027 | 0,008 |
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 ».