Introduction to the special issue: Organizing domestic work: The limits of regulations in the wake of the <scp>ILO</scp> Domestic Workers Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2011, the International Labour Organization adopted a new Domestic Workers Convention, a change that generated struggles internationally around recognizing domestic labor as a form of work. Recognition as a worker is meant to redress the particularities that render the exploitation of domestic workers so intimate, painful, and naturalized. A decade after the Convention's passage is a reasonable period in which to assess its impact, as the papers in the special issue do in a variety of sites. The introduction discusses the limitations of the regulation of work in changing domestic workers' conditions. First, labor studies scholars have shown how contracts can cement inequalities. Second, attempts to standardize domestic labor through work contracts and the law rely on liberalism's supposedly unparalleled capacity to correct historical harms and perfect human relations. Moreover, studies in legal pluralism highlight the ways that informal work is organized according to social conventions. Forms of resistance by domestic workers indicate that they use a sense of rights based both on their status as workers and from other social domains to negotiate employment conditions. This leads us to the conclusion that all forms of energy expended, both paid and unpaid, should be considered forms of work.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".