Administrative procedures adopted in the EU Regulation 2024/3015 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market: The most recent EU response to human rights violations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new EU Regulation 2024/3015 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on December 12, 2024 and shall apply from December 14, 2027 (except for the several enumerated articles which apply from December 13, 2024). The author puts forward the hypothesis that the regulation fits into the global trend to combat the use of a widespread forced labour in the world. Other acts adopted in this context include e.g.: the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (Canada), the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (United States), the “Modern Slavery Act 2015” (United Kingdom) and the “Modern Slavery Act” (Australia). The aim of this paper is to analyse and critically assess the administrative procedures adopted in the EU regulation, assuming that particular attention will be paid to “investigations”, “decisions”, and “enforcement” issues. The author tests the hypothesis that the regulation fits into the third generation administrative procedures.
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 | 0.037 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".