Les codes de conduite des entreprises multinationales et l’action syndicale internationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les syndicats, comme d’autres acteurs de la société civile, ont recours à plusieurs moyens d’action pour convaincre les entreprises multinationales de se doter d’un code de conduite, d’en respecter les termes ou de les amender. Des règles de droit encadrent ces moyens d’action, qu’il s’agisse de propositions d’actionnaires ou de campagnes de boycott et de piquetage. Dans le présent article, nous présentons sommairement ces règles et tentons de voir les opportunités qu’elles créent et les limites qu’elles imposent aux acteurs, en particulier aux syndicats. Envisagées sous cet angle, il ressort que les règles du droit corporatif, du droit constitutionnel de la liberté d’expression et du droit civil constituent des ressources juridiques venant nourrir les nouveaux moyens d’action internationale des syndicats, ce qui, inévitablement, conduit à s’interroger sur le rôle du droit du travail dans la protection ou la promotion des nouveaux modes d’exercice de la liberté syndicale.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".