Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the development of the ILO’sGlobal Strategy on Occupational Safety and Healththrough the lens of social exclusion. Social exclusion is a transversal concept across the social sciences. The article integrates the study of exclusion as an essential element of institutional analysis in industrial relations. After discussing the treatment of the study of exclusion in labour and employment relations scholarship, it presents an analytic frame using four mechanisms of exclusion taken from sociology: 1- encoding; 2- framing pathways; 3- non-decision making; and 4- mining actualities. Observations are presented from a qualitative study of 125 preparatory and legal texts created through the development of theGlobal Strategybetween 2000 and 2015. The method of analysis is a socio-historic interpretation following the principles of analysis of primary source documents outlined by Marc Trachtenberg in his bookThe Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. Exclusionary dynamics are observed in three areas: 1- managing the meaning of OSH policy integration; 2- shaping the role of collective labour rights in OSH policy; and 3- sidestepping the development of specific OSH hazard protections. Comparisons are made at key points with recent normative work by UN human rights bodies, including the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and theirGeneral Comment No. 23on the human right to just and favourable conditions of work. The result is aGlobal OSH Strategywith promotional strengths, but also neoliberal values interwoven in its policy framework.
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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".