Retailers, Manufacturers and Labour: An Early Case of Regulation of Labour Standards in the Clothing Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New South Wales is at the forefront globally in the protection of labour standards in the clothing industry by regulating the supply chain from the bottom to the top, from home workers to clothing retailers. This is the first case in which retailers are effectively brought under a legal regulatory framework in which they are acknowledged as having responsibilities in which the clothing that they sell is manufactured. This is the critical difference between and the great advantage of this model over other models that have attempted to regulate the manufacturing nodes in the supply chain or which rely solely upon voluntary codes. In Canada during the Great Depression and subsequently in the 1930s, a regulatory system was developed in Quebec, which attempted to restrict the more destructive of competitive practices between manufacturers and to (and in part through) generalise negotiated labour standards throughout the industry by way of a Parity Committee. This case holds particular significance for current supply chain regulation developments in New South Wales, Australia and, indeed, globally. Its significance lies in the documented evidence of the exertion of the retail sector over the manufacturers in the clothing industry in Quebec, the practices of manufacturers and contractors to attempt to respond to the demands of the retailers by reducing labour costs, and by the dynamism of a labour movement that was able to win a system of regulation to protect unionised and nonunionised workers within the clothing supply chain. Its significance for current initiatives, however, also lies in what the model was unable to achieve, in particular, bringing the retail sector into the regulatory framework, and, the industrial model of regulation which, which sought supply chain regulation without accounting for all nodes of the chain.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".