Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The history of cocoa production is filled with tales ofslavery, forced labour, illegal child labour and agreat deal of deception. Efforts to eliminate theseforms of labour abuse have met with varying degreesof success. The cocoa and chocolate industries, aswell as governments, have been successful indiverting attention away from these abuses. Theobjective of this chapter is to review the historyof slave and forced labour in the cocoa industry,including forced labour and illegal child labour, toillustrate how governments often collaborate withthe cocoa industry to create and perpetuate theseabuses. This collaboration creates illusoryrestrictions on forced labour that allow slavery topersist. Slavery in the cocoa industray is a seriousform of food crime affecting hundreds of thousandsof people (Walk Free Foundation, 2016). To illustrate the ways in which governments and thecocoa industry have interacted, their relationshipis assessed from the time of the arrival of theEuropeans in the Americas to contemporary times. Thefirst section focuses on the consequences of theEuropean invasion and the conquest of the Americasafter the arrival of Cristoforo Colombo (also knownas Christopher Columbus) in 1492. The second sectionis concerned with attempts to either embarrasschocolate makers to stop buying slave-producedcocoa, or to convince cocoa-producing nations tovoluntarily put an end to the use of slave labour.The third section is focused on potential ways toreduce or elimate slavery and forced labour in thecocoa industry. Origins of the problem When Colombo arrived in the Americas, cocoa productionwas well established. Colombo did not think much ofit as a potential trade product. It was not untilsomtime after 1585, after Hernando Cortez introducedit to Spain, that it began to emerge as a tradecommodity (Coe and Coe, 2007). Its ascendency as oneof the world's favourite food treats coincided withan increase in the use of slave labour, as well as amajor change in the source of slave labour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".