Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Canada and the US have both adopted labor relations legal frameworks based on the Wagner model, labor relations has played out very differently in the two countries. This is particularly evident in the countries’ divergent trajectories of changing union density. In recent decades the US has experienced a steep, sustained decline in unionization, while Canadian unionization has seen a slow decline and overall stagnation in union density. This prompts the question addressed in this paper: will the labor relations experiences of these closely linked nations continue to diverge, or will Canada’s labor relations landscape come to resemble that of the US? This paper focuses on two alternative, but related, perspectives for explaining the different labor relations experiences of the US and Canada, offering insights into their likely futures: John Godard’s Historical-Institutionalist perspective, and Harry Arthurs’ “Real” Constitution perspectives. Past and current efforts to introduce right-to-work measures (defined broadly) and the labor movements’ recent countervailing efforts are considered in light of these perspectives. This paper concludes by considering which perspective is likely to be borne out in the context of contemporary events and, specifically, whether these attempts are likely to succeed. In short, despite the protection offered by Canada’s juridical constitution, the question remains whether its “real” constitution has undergone greater, countervailing change reflecting a fundamental shift in the nations’ norms and values such that labor law will follow.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".