MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381849343 · doi:10.1111/ilr.12401

Safety and health at work as fundamental rights: A comparative‐historical study of the ILO's strategy of realistic vigilance

2023· article· en· W4381849343 on OpenAlex
Jeffrey Hilgert

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Labour Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVigilance (psychology)Occupational safety and healthCovenantWork (physics)Fundamental rightsPolitical scienceHuman rightsLaw and economicsEconomicsEngineeringLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a comparative‐historical study of ILO action on occupational safety and health (OSH) as fundamental rights. In the two decades following the adoption of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the ILO used a realist lens and prioritized the idea that OSH were dependent upon economic preconditions for their protection. This history is revisited in the light of the new complex of global health uncertainty and the addition of OSH to the framework of fundamental principles and rights at work. The analysis highlights the applicability of a realistic vigilance approach to the ILO's current work on OSH.

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 score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.321 · 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