Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the safety regulations and its enforcement systems for the childrens clothing in Korea and major foreign countries. Safety regulations for childrens clothing in Korea and major foreign countries (European Commission, United States, Canada, Australia) were reviewed and recall cases enforced during 2014 were collected from each countrys governmental report. Total 527 recall cases were analyzed by hazard types, injury descriptions, recall actions, and remedies. As results, proportion of childrens clothing recall was lower than other countries and it would be interpreted as the reason because korean apparel or retail firms and government recognize childrens clothing as low hazardous product. In the comparison of hazard types, suffocation, strangulation, other injuries caused by various cords, straps or small pieces showed the highest proportion. On the other hand, toxic chemical materials of fabrics and/or process ranked the highest proportion in Korea. In addition, standards for flammability and fire hazard by childrens sleepwear was not regulated at all. Comparing the recall actions and remedies, United States, Canada, Australia and more developed European countries adopt voluntary recalls whereas low labor cost European sourcing countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary adopt compulsory recalls. On the other hand Korea adopt advisory recalls which is not only voluntary recalls by company itself but also is not compulsory recalls by government. In conclusion, primarily, providing a safe clothing to vulnerable children is the responsibility of designers, product developer, buying merchandiser and government is responsible to establish safety regulations and enforce ongoing surveillance in the market. Therefore, government should establish more detailed regulations to meet the global standard and should take enforced action to guarantee safe childrens clothing. In addition, designers, merchandisers, or buyers should understand newly developed materials ongoing basis in order to provide hazard childrens clothing. The results of this study will be utilized as the primary information in developing products and entering global market.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".