Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article critically analyzes a number of innovative initiatives that had been taken to ensure the safety of ready-made garment (RMG) factory workers in Bangladesh and proposes ideas about transnational labour governance. After the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh, these transnational safety initiatives (TSIs) offered a promising way to address some of the adverse distributional effects of the globalized forms of production by engaging a myriad of forces, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), the national government, corporate brands/retailers, and international and national trade unions. Despite broad commitments to address an urgent regulatory issue like labour safety, this Article shows how these governance mechanisms, which attempted to link labour governance with trade/economic arrangements, uphold the existing narrow conceptualizations of labour right and labour issues. Utilizing insights from different disciplines, i.e. labour law, human rights and international development, this Article examines how context-based attention to labour’s capability enhancement objective would produce a much more compelling governance mechanism at a transnational level. The proposed governance model would accommodate a wider conceptualizations of labour and labour rights, require a stronger form of corporate responsibility, and emphasize labourers’ political empowerment. The Article does not discard the necessity of state-based actions and regulations. However, realizing the globalized nature of production and its influence on workers and work conditions, this Article calls for re-thinking the ways labour governance mechanisms are designed in transnational settings. Analyzing the interaction of diverse rules, governance processes and mechanisms with the demands of marginalized forces, i.e. the labourers, this Article attempts to outline a possible alternative to the global hegemony of capital.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".