MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239980505 · doi:10.1177/1744935910362742

Slender threads: Social labeling in the Indian carpet industry since the mid-1990s

2010· article· en· W4239980505 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement & Organizational History · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsCertificationCover (algebra)BusinessPublic relationsMarketingInternational tradePolitical economyCommerceEconomySociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the past few years, when global companies have been confronted with evidence that their subcontractors are using child labor, they often turn to ‘social labeling’ and third-party certification to show consumers that their products are ‘child-labor free’.This article examines what is probably the most famous example of this kind of social labeling schemes, ‘Rugmark’, a program in India that attaches a label to handwoven carpets woven on looms which have been monitored by an independent NGO. In examining Rugmark, the article notes some of the common problems that plague voluntary self-regulatory schemes, including NGOs’ lack of resources to cover a far-flung industry; NGOs’ inability to monitor workplaces that fail to register with the scheme; and, above all, the ease with which international consumers can be misled by alternate labels.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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