NOTES, DEBATES AND COMMUNICATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International labour standards: Recent developments in complementarity between the international and national supervisory systems Eric GRAVEL * and Quentin DELPECH** Abstract. Far from competing against one another, the national and international systems of labour regulation are interlocked. ILO standards have been used in recent rulings by the highest jurisdictions of some countries. Examining two decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada and another by the Paris Court of Appeal, the authors clarify the circumstances in which national courts make use of these international sources of law and consequent legal implications. The cases involve proceedings before national courts and ILO bodies, and France and Canada also have different legal cultures, enabling a discussion of how national jurisdictions actually appropriate international labour standards. he idea of regulating labour internationally emerged concomitantly with T the adoption of labour law provisions at the national level (Valticos, 1983). Far from being a mere reflection of national legal constructs, international labour law was indeed thought out as a regulatory system for dealing with competition between national economies. The framing of international rules on labour was thus a legal extension essential to the operation of national law. The internationalization of labour law found institutional embodiment in the ILO. The adoption of national labour codes and the gradual institutionalization of labour law as a discipline were paralleled by the ILO’s standard-setting work at the international level. The development of national legislation and international legal instruments on labour was thus coordinated. Indeed, the formulation of international labour standards based on tripartite consensus
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.028 |
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".