Creative Recourse in Cases of Forced Labour: Using Human Trafficking, Human Rights and Labour Law to Protect Migrant Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada has no legislation prohibiting forced labour, relying instead on human trafficking penal dispositions; the two are intimately related. However, there has only been one conviction for human trafficking for the purposes of forced labour. Here, we offer an analysis of jurisprudence according to a model of labour trafficking focusing on the intersection of labour exploitation and coercion, particularly among migrant workers. We argue that Canadian human trafficking law remains incomplete and fails to address situations of forced labour. There is a need to think creatively about recourses. Labour and human rights law recourses are more accessible to migrant workers than human trafficking law, given the lighter burden of proof and the unlikelihood that courts will recognize the systemic coercion to which migrant workers are subject. Workers and advocates are understandably drawn to these alternative recourses, yet consequences for employers profiting from forced labour are disappointingly minor.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".