MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011250867 · doi:10.2298/tem1203161a

Conceptualizing child labour trafficking and exploitation: The case of Roma children in Montenegro

2012· article· en· W2011250867 on OpenAlexaff
Antonela Arhin

Bibliographic record

VenueTemida · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social InnovationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontenegroBeggingHuman traffickingChild labourContext (archaeology)CriminologyVulnerability (computing)Government (linguistics)SociologyPolitical scienceLawHistoryWork (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trafficking of children for labour exploitation is a profit-oriented criminal activity by which children are recruited, transported, harboured or received for the purpose of labour exploitation irrespective of whether or not force, abduction, fraud or other means were used. This paper examines child labour trafficking in the context of human rights violations and as the worst form of child labour. In an attempt to situate the discourse of alleged labour exploitation and trafficking of Roma children in Montenegro, focusing in particular on instances of child begging, this paper offers an overview of the international legal framework as well as the Government of Montenegro?s policy framework relevant to this issue; an analysis of implicated historical, familial and cultural structures; and focuses on identifying root causes in terms of push-pull factors that are associated with enhancing children?s vulnerability and proneness to exploitation. Along with a set of recommendations, in closing, the paper calls for a more sophisticated analysis of child labour trafficking and, in the case of Roma children, a more nuanced understanding of historical and cultural pretexts against the backdrop of labour trafficking.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTemidaSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207