MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391880942 · doi:10.1111/ilrs.12301

Seguridad y salud en el trabajo como derechos fundamentales. Estudio histórico‐comparativo de la estrategia de realismo vigilante de la OIT

2024· article· es· W4391880942 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Hilgert

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Internacional del Trabajo · 2024
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumen En los dos decenios siguientes a la adopción del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, la OIT aplicó un enfoque realista al defender que el ejercicio de la seguridad y salud en el trabajo (SST) como derecho fundamental pasaba por garantizar ciertas condiciones económicas previas. El presente estudio histórico‐comparativo pasa revista a la actuación de la OIT en ese contexto, a la luz del nuevo complejo de incertidumbre sanitaria mundial y de la incorporación de la SST al marco de principios y derechos fundamentales en el trabajo. Se analiza también la aplicabilidad de un enfoque de realismo vigilante a la labor actual de la OIT en este campo.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Internacional del TrabajoSame topicInternational Labor and Employment LawFrench-language works237,207