Labour Rights as Human Rights: Advancing the Positivists’ Argument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The question whether labour rights are human rights has provoked a lot of debate among scholars. Surveying the literature, three different approaches are identified namely, Instrumental Approach, Normative Approach and Positive Approach. These approaches are outlined to navigate the discussion herein. The paper supports, explores and develops the Positive Approach with reference to the principle of ‘indivisibility of rights. It used Amartya Sen’s view on indivisibility of rights as a framework and argues that some human rights instruments not only contain labour rights, but also propagate the indivisibility of rights. If rights are indivisible as expressed in such human rights treaties, then labour rights can be enforced as human rights. Regarding the indivisibility of rights, the African (Banjul) Charter is used to project the argument and to set the limit of the paper.
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 | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".