MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392860482 · doi:10.1017/9781788213691.009

The Collective Voices of Women Workers and What C190 and R206 Represent

2022· other· en· W4392860482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter reflects on the global campaign, how it was brought into the negotiations for an ILO Convention in the Standard-Setting Committees in 2018 and 2019 and what was important from the perspective of workers involved in both the negotiations and the global campaign. It hears from some of the campaigners and participants in the negotiations about their role, defining moments and activities to be prioritized looking ahead. Reflections on the standard-setting process As the reporter from the Standard-Setting Committee said to the ILC, discussions were often difficult and tense, but he notes: “The Committee's outcome is evidence of the enduring value and strength of social dialogue” (ILO 2019e: 2). As one worker member of the committee, Martle Keyter of MISA and FEDUSA, noted when interviewed, 2018 had been difficult and often conflictual, but the 2019 negotiations, although hard, consolidated the need for a Convention: In 2019, when it fell together, particularly we fought hard on domestic violence, and – wow! – how emotional we were … The negotiation process was long and hard, often with exchanges going back and forward, often into the night. But we got agreement in the end. The workers’ spokesperson was under enormous pressure, particularly when it became heated. Credit was also given to the skilful role played by the chairperson of the committee, and to the courage needed to find solutions, sometimes through an “unorthodox approach to its proceedings in order to allow for the consideration of different, but related, parts of the text, thereby reaching better conclusions as to the overall impact of the proposed instruments” (ILO 2019e: 2). The Drafting Committee played an important role, often sitting well into the early hours of the morning. The representatives from governments, employers and workers in the Drafting Committee ensured the alignment of the two official final texts in French and English. The workers’ spokesperson, Marie Clarke Walker, brought an energy and passion to the negotiations in 2018 and 2019. As a black woman, committed to ensuring “no one is left behind”, she skilfully crafted a feminist, inclusive and intersectional approach throughout the negotiations. Clarke Walker was a member of the ILO Governing Body and a senior trade union leader with the CLC in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.019
Scholarly communication0.0190.009
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→