MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379624289 · doi:10.1353/iur.2010.0060

Editorial: Business and Human Rights

2010· editorial· en· W4379624289 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueInternational Union Rights · 2010
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ICTUR □ EDITORIAL Editorial: Business and Human Rights This unionists that edition is taking tomake of place IUR some in attempts the sense 'Ruggie' to ofthe help forums. process trade It unionists tomakesomesenseoftheprocess that is taking placeinthe'Ruggie' forums. It is not,unfortunately, a tradeunionists guideto holdingbusinessesto accountfortransnational humanrights violations. Butitmight be helpful and/or interesting reading foranyonethinking of embarking on sucha project. We beginwiththe manhimself, Professor JohnRuggie, interviewed briefly bytheILO earlier this year. Ruggie setsout ina very simpleandaccessible form exactly what it is he understands the Businessand Human Rights processtobe. Later inthisedition, ICTUR's Director, DanielBlackburn, setsouta little more detailofhowtheprocessevolved,and examines theextent to whichtradeunionshave (or have not)engagedwiththeprocesstodate. Forthemajority ofarticles appearing inthiseditionofIURwe wantedtoavoidsimply reproducinga string ofidentical reports from CSRexperts who wouldbe eagerto explainin minute detail the exact ramifications of Ruggie'slatestpronouncements . InsteadIURsoughtouta different perspective on Businessand HumanRights. We invited people who are verymuchinvolvedin theseissuesat thefrontline in theirday to day work, butwhoarenotformally part oftheRuggie machinery. Thisresulted in an unusualslanton the whole process,particularly notable being Surya Tjandra's report on theuse ofthecriminal lawagainst employers for violations oftrade union Next issue of IUR Articles between 850and1,900 words should besentbyemail (mail@ictur.org) andaccompanied bya photograph andshort biographical note oftheauthor. Photographs illustrating thetheme ofarticles arealways welcome. Allitems must bewith usby30August 2010if they are tobeconsidered for publication inthenext issueofIUR. Subscribe toIUR: tosubscribe, complete theboxbelow. I/we would like tosubscribe toInternational Union Rights andenclose£20/US$30/€25. Name/Organisation Address PostCode Four issues£20/US$30/€25. Cheques should bemadepayable to"IUR" andsentto:ICTUR, 177Abbeville Road, London SW49RL, UK rights. I hopeyouwillenjoyreading this andallof ourcontributions thistime around. First up, YemisiIllesanmi reports on whatthe Ruggie framework lookslikefrom Nigeria, a country that hascertainly haditsfair shareoffrontline exposure tothebusiness andhuman rights nexus. Although YemisivoicesconcernthattheRuggie processseems somewhat remotefrom theperspective ofNigerian workers - Ruggie 'wouldhave benefited morefrom interaction with thecommunity ', Yemisi suggests, rather than justthe'topechelons '- she also finds realsubstance inthebasic principle of CSR.Kirstine Drew from theTrade UnionAdvisory Committee to theOECD reports on one specificframework underwhichsome interesting efforts have been made to hold transnational businessesto accountforhumán rights violations, specifically thesebeing theOECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises. Although Kirstine suggests that theperformance ofmostof the enforcement agencies(the National Contact Points orNCPs)hasbeen'mixed andmostly poor', she also finds thatthereare realsuccessstories, notably arising from theUK NCP,whichpointto thepotential thattheGuidelines wouldseemto have as one of the important mechanisms for improving corporate human rights accountability. Jeff Ballinger and RoyAdamsare boththoroughly critical. Jeff roundly slamsthewholeindustrythathas sproutedup aroundthe Ruggie process, writing offa circus that he sees as composedof 'parasitic socialauditors'. Jeff argues that critics of theRuggieprocesshavebeen marginalisedand he further criticises Ruggie's methodologies ,especially in respect oftheconsultation meetings he has calledat whichonlycorporate law firms have been represented. RoyAdamsis similarly unimpressed, buttakesissuewith differentperceived faults oftheRuggie process. Why, Adamsasks,was Ruggienotprepared to engage witha seriousoffer to examinehow freedom of association couldbe 'operationalised' in Canada. 'IfRuggie is tobe credible' Adamsconcludes, 'his framework must be applicable toallhuman rights inallofthenations oftheworld'. Meanwhile, as usualthe'Focus'ofthis edition of IURis notouronlyconcern. Returning toone of the core themesthathas concerned ICTURfor many yearswe present a vitalreport from ICTUR ColombiaCoordinator MiguelPuerto. Puerto sets outhisanalysis ofa disturbing newstrategy ofthe Colombian government to sow confusion regardingthesystematic nature ofanti-union violence in thecountry. Meanwhile, alsointhesecondhalf of the journalwe take a look at the latestITUC Annual Survey ofViolations ofTradeUnion Rights, and reportfromthe ITUC's Second World Congress. Daniel Blackburn,Editor INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 2Volume 17Issue 2201 0 ...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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