A Struggle for Democracy in the Workplace : The Possibilities and Limits of the Constitutionalization of Labour and Employment Law in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace relations in developing countries are characterized as being traditionally authoritarian. But severe violation of human rights in the workplace can also be found in the most developed countries, and therefore modern society is finding itself faced with a sad reality : a universal situation of the vulnerability and fragility of human rights in the workplace. Through the weakening of state institutions and the corresponding strengthening of the economic power spheres within the context of globalization, the survival of democracy in everyday life is threatened by transnational corporations, especially considering the lack of instruments to appropriately punish them. The human rights movement in Brazil has focused on the violation of human rights perpetrated by governments, yet it has not been so critical or outspoken regarding violations committed by major corporations. Defending the implementation of human rights in the workplace is an effort to counteract the dehumanization of worker-citizens by giving them more space for self-determination. It is essential that the principle of human dignity, already enshrined in the Brazilian Constitution, becomes one of the main pillars of Labour and Employment Law. The article analyzes how the constitutionalization of Labour and Employment Law in Brazil has been used to tackle the above mentioned problems.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".