Core Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO): Implications for Nigerian Labour Laws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines core conventions of the International Labour Organization with possible effects on Nigerian Labour Law. The paper highlights the reasons why the ILO was established, one of which the author states as dealing with social welfare policies on employment of children, among others. The author adopts a theoretical approach, the structural functionalist theory by Talcott Parson to explain the dynamics of the international labour organization. The paper further identifies some of the ILO core Conventions to include, forced labour convention No.29 of 1930, Freedom of Association and protection of the right to organize convention No. 87 of 1948, Right to organize a Collective Bargaining Convention No. 98 of 1949, Occupational Safety and Health No. 155 of 1981 and so on. The paper associates the origin of the Nigerian Labour Law with some of the ILO ratified Legislation which took the form of recommendations. ILO expects member nations that have ratified its conventions to be bound by them. But in international law, it is not an easy thing. In a country like Nigeria with a dualist system any international treaty or law or legislation must be domesticated by the National Assembly before it can be enforced in Nigeria. Backing this up the paper cites section 12 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which is a ground norm. Therefore, an ILO Convention that has not been passed into Law in Nigeria cannot be legally enforced. The paper maintains that this explains why some treaties, legislation or laws that have not been domesticated have failed to be enforced in Nigeria. The author finally concludes that in spite of all these that ILO is a dynamic organization that plays diversified roles in international labour matters. That it’s operation at global level should be supported and encouraged to better the life of numerous workers across the member nations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".