MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128540043 · doi:10.1177/1468018114544765

Falling through the cracks? Migrant workers and the Global Social Protection Floor

2014· article· en· W2128540043 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna Hennebry

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Social Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityBalsillie School of International Affairs
FundersIntelligent Manufacturing Research CenterUnited Nations Development Programme
KeywordsDeclarationMigrant workersContext (archaeology)Social protectionHuman rightsPolitical scienceFalling (accident)Economic growthWork (physics)Social rightsFace (sociological concept)SociologyEconomicsLawGeographyMedicineEnvironmental healthSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing numbers of migrant workers worldwide face human rights violations, exploitation and mistreatment, and lack broader social protections granted to permanent residents in countries where they work. Protecting migrant labour was an objective at the founding of the International Labour Organization (ILO), documented within the Declaration of Philadelphia in 1944. Yet, more than 60 years on, despite numerous United Nations (UN) conventions, declarations and frameworks aimed at protecting their rights, migrant workers remain marginalized. In the context of globalizing labour markets and economic crises, migrant workers are a particularly vulnerable group. This article will discuss the extent to which the Global Social Protection Floor Initiative (SPF) has addressed this group, and will assess how well existing international, bilateral and national frameworks for social protection extend to migrant workers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Social PolicySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207