MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406758201 · doi:10.38035/jlph.v5i1.887

Legal Protection of Workers' Rights for Victims of Workplace Accidents: A Cross-National Comparative Analysis in the Context of Worker Welfare

2024· article· en· W4406758201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sahda Saraswati Akbar, Rianda Dirkareshza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law Politic and Humanities · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareContext (archaeology)Occupational safety and healthBusinessWorkers' compensationCriminologyPolitical scienceLawSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workers' rights to occupational safety are defined as rights that must be considered by all countries as stated in article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Through this, the author is interested in conducting research as a form of achieving better worker welfare and also aims to provide insight for policy makers to improve and develop regulations related to worker safety and health. This study uses a comparative method that compares regulations in Iceland, Canada, Belgium, Singapore, Australia with regulations in Indonesia using a legal research approach and a conceptual approach. The novelty in this study is to conduct a comparative study of the six countries in achieving worker welfare through aspects of worker health and safety. However, of course Indonesia needs to make other considerations in determining regulations or policies that will be adopted through implementation in other countries.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law Politic and HumanitiesSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207