Human Rights in Translation: Bolivia’s Law 548, Working Children’s Movements, and the Global Child Labour Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What happens when children use their own understandings of their human rights to question international standards in the very places where these are adopted and monitored? In this article, we study the encounters of Latin American working children's movements with members of the European Parliament in Brussels and with ILO staff in Geneva, in an attempt to influence the assessment of Bolivia's Law 548. The law was drafted with the help of a working children's movement and diverges from international norms by providing protection to working children of 10 years and older. We invoke the concept of ‘translation' to analyse how and why the notions of ‘protagonismo infantil', ‘work as a part of education', and ‘the right to work in dignity' were used to challenge the dominant anti-child labour discourse of the EU and the ILO. While these efforts were not successful in a conventional way, we argue that they were important for the political consciousness of Latin American working children's movements and strengthened their belief that the real defenders of working children's rights are not the international organisations claiming to act on their behalf, but working children themselves.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".