Between the Law and the Case: Making Sense of Labor Inspectors’ Responses to Workplace Risks in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, il s’agit de discuter la gestion des risques au travail à travers une analyse centrée sur le travail réalisé par les inspecteurs du travail. Appuyé sur une recherche approfondie sur l’Inspection du Travail au Brésil, on révèle deux modes implicites de production et de justification du travail d’inspection – « la défense fiscale » et « l’ingénierie sociale ». Ces modes médiatisent la transformation des lois abstraites en des cas concrets d’inspection. Ils sont examinés en fonction de leurs propriétés concernant la réduction de l’incertitude et la légitimation des actions d’inspection, et répercussions sur des approches de gestion des risques nettement différenciées – basées sur la durabilité financière du système ou sur le développement d’incitations à la prévention des risques dans les relations locales de production.
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 | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".