MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198178304

Human Rights in Translation: Bolivia’s Law 548, Working Children’s Movements, and the Global Child Labour Regime

2021· article· en· W3198178304 on OpenAlexaff
Edward van Daalen

Bibliographic record

VenueArchive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDignityHuman rightsChild labourLatin AmericansPolitical scienceParliamentPoliticsLawLabour lawInternational lawInternational human rights lawSociologyWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva)Same topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207