Book Review: Constitutional Labour Rights in Canada: Farm Workers and the Fraser Case, by Fay Faraday, Judy Fudge and Eric Tucker (eds)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (the Court) on 29 April 2011 issued its decision in Ontario (Attorney General) v Fraser, 3 the Court's most recent attempt to defi ne the scope of constitutionally-protected freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.4 Fraser involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an Ontario statute, the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA), 5 that, among other things, permitted farm workers in Ontario to make "representations" to their employers but required those employers only to listen to those representations, if made orally, or to read them, if written.6 Th e Court in Fraser found that the AEPA met the const itutional standard for freedom of association.Th e thirteen authors (including the three editors) of eleven separate essays in this book focus on Canadian agricultural workers and their attempts to achieve eff ective and constitutionally-protected collective bargaining.Th e editors openly express their commitment to social justice for agricultural workers and to securing for them the labour rights and standards available to the "vast majority" of other workers in Ontario.7 In her introductory essay, Editor Judy Fudge, who was the Lansdowne
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".