Economic Globalization and Social Rights: The Role of the International Labor Organization and the WTO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter purports to make some remarks on a highly debated issue among public international law scholars: that is, the relevance of the fundamental principles and rights concerning labor in the context of the globalization 1 of the economy. I chose to approach the subject matter in the light of the practice of certain international organizations that appear competent ratione materiae – the International Labor Organization (ILO) – or whose aims and statutory objectives can eventually interfere with the enjoyment of human rights in the social fi eld – the World Trade Organization (WTO). 2 While the practices of the ILO appear to be 1 The term “globalization” is usually understood as a complex economic phenomenon, in which it is possible to distinguish different components such as the increase in international commercial exchange, the application in the production sectors of information and computer technology, the intensifi cation of international competition, the increase in number and strength of transnational business groupings and worldwide strategies, the planet-wide fi nancing dominated by the necessity to maximise the yield of invested capital, and the phenomenon of volatility of the markets connected to them. See ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS (W. Benedek, K. De Feyter & F. Marrella eds, Cambridge University Press, 2007). For an ILO approach, see GLOBALIZING SOCIAL RIGHTS: THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION AND BEYOND ( S. Kott, J. Droux eds, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). See also Workers Rights in a Globalizing World: the Role of Labour Provisions in Free Trade Agreements, ILO Conference, May 8, 2014, Toronto (Canada).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".