MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889156389 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v11n3p33

International Trade Agreements and Their Relation to Core Labor Standards

2018· article· en· W2889156389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shu‐Hong Yu, Malik Zia-ud-Din

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Labor
KeywordsAssertionUnanimityEnforcementArgument (complex analysis)Human rightsEconomicsLaw and economicsLabour lawGovernment (linguistics)International tradeCore (optical fiber)Political scienceLabour economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research is an attempt to comprehend with these issues and enunciate an argument that international labor rights and labor standards are a pivotal component of international trade, investment, and development strategy for the well-being of the entire society not only for the wealthy nations. Section 1 of the paper lays out unanimity of labor rights and standards depicted from different sources with evoking instances showing real concerns that have originated with the development of new universal trade. Section 2 illustrates various forums where the international labor rights assertion perhaps induced, through a discourse of multiple supervision or enforcement mechanism available under such forums. Last part of the paper concludes the study and proposes future initiatives to labor rights advocates from all discussions and further recommends new allegiances to international fair labor rights and standards by government, employers, and trade unions entered into a global economy.

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)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.031
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207