The International Labour Organization and Its Contribution to the Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary From its very inception, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has been a pioneer in addressing indigenous peoples’ issues, albeit initially from a culturally biased, integrationist perspective. Its contributions have progressed from the preparation of studies on the working conditions of indigenous peoples in the 1920s, to the elaboration of recommendations and conventions on indigenous labour rights in the early 1940s and 1950s, and most recently to the adoption of legally binding instruments recognizing a broader range of indigenous rights, such as those pertaining to land and resources, which are at the top of indigenous peoples’ agendas. This article reviews and assesses these developments with a particular focus on ILO Convention nos. 107 (1957) and 169 (1989). The author concludes that, setting aside its initially assimilationist orientation, the ILO has made invaluable contributions in partial satisfaction of indigenous demands and has succeeded in establishing a solid floor of basic, minimum prerequisites for the safeguarding of the dignity and rights of these most disadvantaged, both historically and presently, peoples.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".