Modern Slavery and Freedom: Exploring Contradictions through Labour Scandals in the Thai Fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the modern anti‐slavery movement through the lens of the slavery scandal in Thailand’s fisheries sector. The slavery framing provoked a response on the part of governments, corporations and NGOs that produced improvements in working conditions. Nevertheless, we argue that while the slavery framing was effective in drawing attention and resources to solidarity groups, it provided a poor guide to action because of how it resolves complex and embodied relations of freedom and unfreedom into a simplified opposition that can be used to justify capitalism as the realm of freedom—rather than a cause of unfree labour or slavery. The Work in Fishing Convention (ILO C‐188) has provided a guide for laws and regulations intended to improve working conditions in industrial fishing in Thailand and elsewhere, but it does not address slavery or human trafficking. It also frames work in fisheries as exceptional, and thus allows for working conditions that would be considered unacceptable on land. We suggest that critical scholars be cautious about working with a slavery framing, and that they might want to engage with working conditions in ways that start less with questions of unfree labour, and more with how capitalist labour practices can be constrained.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".