Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.048 |
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".