MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625127575 · doi:10.1080/03056244.2017.1318359

The International Labour Organization and African trade unions: tripartite fantasies and enduring struggles

2017· article· en· W2625127575 on OpenAlexafffund
Nick Bernards

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of African Political Economy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaInternational Labour Organization
KeywordsPolitical scienceInternational tradePolitical economyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article examines the complex and contradictory history of interactions between the International Labour Organization (ILO) and trade unions in Africa from 1960 to the present. The paper focuses in particular on ILO efforts to deliver technical assistance to trade unions. I highlight the tensions raised by the mismatch between ILO’s adherence to a particular view of industrial unionism rooted in northern European experience, which I label the ‘tripartite fantasy’ and the political and economic realities of labour in Africa. The article draws on original archival and interview evidence to trace out the subtle conflicts raised by these tensions. It focuses in particular on the difficulty in balancing the principle of freedom of association with efforts to promote ‘unity’ among African unions. These tensions played out most clearly in efforts to organise assistance to unions under apartheid. The article concludes by reflecting on the difficult position of the ILO in contemporary African politics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.035
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of African Political EconomySame topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207