MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wrestling with the New Economy: Judicial Rhetoric in Canadian Wrongful Dismissal Claims

2010· article· en· W1916853817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annette Nierobisz

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw & Social Inquiry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Downsizing and Restructuring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDismissalRhetoricDoctrineIdeologyPlaintiffUnfair dismissalJudicial opinionLawPolitical scienceLabour lawSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary Law and Society scholars emphasize focused study of “law and the economy” yet empirical work on the legal implications of important economic transformations of the late twentieth century is limited. To address this issue, I analyze Canadian wrongful dismissal claims heard to judgment between 1981 and 1997 to understand how judges grappled with contradictions that arose between classic legal doctrine on the employment relationship, unstable economic conditions that limited employment opportunities for plaintiffs, and new business ideologies about employee expendability and flexibility. Findings demonstrate that judicial rhetoric was attentive to the contradictions that arose with the new economy, and unique responses were developed. These responses, however, varied according to specific socioeconomic contexts embedded within the seventeen‐year period under study. I conclude by suggesting the development of more dynamic theories of law and the economy to capture the ways in which law shifts in response to changing economic contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0300.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw & Social InquirySame topicOrganizational Downsizing and RestructuringFrench-language works237,207