Conceptualizing child labour trafficking and exploitation: The case of Roma children in Montenegro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".