Guest Editors' Introduction: The Future and Praxis of Decent Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While editing this Special Issue has been a long process, it has been a riveting one as we watch how changes to the global world of work have included the exposure of unfree labour, and how the economic crisis continues to depress the labour market. The question of social clauses and labour standards in trade relations becomes more urgent as the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is debated. The case studies in this Special Issue demonstrate the application of International Labour Organisation (ILO) principles of decent work at the national level, and continue to promote the ideals of international solidarity advocated by the ILO but in much weakened national labour markets. Further, there are significant strategic and substantive differences in terms of agendas, organisation and resources. Showing the limitations as well as potentials for decent work as a 'game-changer', Felix Hauf first discusses the relevance of the ILO's Decent Work Agenda for labour union strategies in Indonesia, drawing on related fieldwork. Hauf compares two seemingly contradictory approaches to decent work in Indonesia, looking specifically at the garment, textile and shoes industry. Antonella Mennella and Martina Lavagnini next discuss the basic-relations-fairness proposal in Italy, framed from the debate on decent work as an instrument that could measure specifics of human development. Jamie Morgan and Wendy Olsen then look at the case of India for absences of decent work, where forced and unfree labour are
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".