Work Rights: A Human Rights-Based Response to Poverty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decent work and work rights are key to creating sustainable livelihoods and eradicating poverty. Yet, judging by the prevalent discourse on poverty, neither has been a central concern in international development policy. As the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) confirm, there has been longstanding acceptance of the importance of food, health, education, gender equality, and environmental sustainability to poverty reduction. Each of these goals parallels a legally protected human right. In comparison, the MDG framework has only recently included decent work and full employment for all as a development target, and indeed, work rights have often been viewed as antithetical rather than essential to economic growth, development and poverty eradication. This chapter explores this paradox and its implications for eradicating poverty through realizing work rights, including the rights to be free from slavery and servitude, the right to work, the right to just and favourable working conditions, the right of individuals to form trade unions, as well as the collective rights of trade unions, and the right to social security, including social insurance. In the course of discussing these work-related rights, this chapter also considers the right to be free of discrimination. Recent UN reports indicate that these work rights, including full employment and decent work, are being rediscovered as important components of development and poverty eradication. Indeed, the Secretary-General’s proposal to incorporate full employment and decent work for all as a new target for the MDGs was accepted in late 2007. The link between decent work and human rights is, however, still tenuous.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".