Imagining Post "Geneva Consensus" Labor Law for Post "Washington Consensus" Development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that there exists a “Geneva Consensus” about the necessary content, and processes, of the international labour law of the ILO. The parallel to the Washington Consensus is intentional. Development theory has abandoned the Washington Consensus for reasons which have important, but as yet unexplored, implications for international labour law. Development theorists have come to see that the deepest problem lies not in the word “Washington” but in the very idea of a “Consensus”. The paper also argues that labour faces an “identify crisis” about its true scope and purpose which makes the need for a re-evaluation of the idea of a Geneva “Consensus” all the more pressing. The paper sketches a philosophical account of the demise of the very idea of a consensus, whether about development in general or labour law in particular. Some of the general methodological and substantive implications for the ILO of the abandonment of the idea of a “Consensus” are discussed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".