Juridical Consequences of the Decisions of the International Labour Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Author describes the International Labour Conference, as the "annual meeting of the Member States of the International Labour Office. " The I.L.O. has as purpose "to promote social justice in the interest of world peace.'' After a short analysis of the means at the disposal of this organization, the Author establishes the necessary distinctions between three types of decisions which the I.L.O. may reach: Resolutions, Recommendations and Conventions. He then emphasizes the characteristics of the obligation of the Member States towards conventions, discussing the rôle of public opinion and of the functions of boards of inquiry. The author gives considerable attention to the case of federated states such as Canada, who enjoy a privileged situation, as the legislative jurisdiction here on labour questions is not entirely confined to the central authority. The possible points of dispute are studied in conclusion as well as the eventual sanctions.
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 | 0.041 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".