Etude des procédures de mise en Åuvre des droits fondamentaux au travail : perspectives d'évolution du rôle de l'OIT dans le contexte de la mondialisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of economic globalisation, the unequal distribution of wealth among nations often leads to infringe fundamental workers' rights, so that it has become a major concern for politicians, scholars, jurists and NGOs. Therefore the question is how the social market can be regulated today. The ILO is the first international organisation that has dealt with workers' rights, especially fundamental rights, its goal being to protect workers universally. If its legitimacy had been unquestioned for years, it is shattered by external economic factors today: state's loss of power in regulating social relations, the emergence of new political counterbalances on the international scene---unknown by international public law---and self-governance by social labels or codes of conducts. The author will attempt, by a critical appraisal, to demonstrate that the ILO has its own constitutional and logistical means to implement fundamental workers' rights efficiently and independently: union freedom and collective negotiation, prohibition of hard labour, prohibition of child labour, prohibition of discrimination. According to the author, the ILO is undergoing an institutional transition. The latter is adapting to the new economic context. In Geneva centralised procedures are still very centralised but they are in the same time counterweighted by local actions or soft procedures. These more flexible and discrete procedures are the keystone of the ILO system of supervision to implement fundamental rights. Finally it is relevant to have a look at regional organisations which deal with those fundamental rights, as they have a special role in implementing the ILO fundamental rights.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".