Liberté de grève et liberté de commerce. Le régime de la grève légale au Québec au regard de celui découlant de la législation américaine du travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although built around the same basic principles of exclusive representation of unit employees in favour of the majority union, the legislative systems regulating the collective bargaining process in Quebec and within the American federal jurisdiction present significant differences with respect to both the scope of permissible strike action and the course of a legal strike. A survey of the relevant discrepancies reveals that the legislative framework is more stringent in Quebec. The relative flexibility of the American system tends to work against the employer when one looks at the greater availability of the right to strike that it affords. This is not only the case with respect to so-called economic strikes over collective bargaining issues, but also with respect to different kinds of protest strikes. On the other hand, the American employeur seems to enjoy a relatively freer hand in taking different measures to counteract a strike, for instance, through the use of permanent replacements. A certain internal equilibrium may then be prevalent within each of the compared legal systems. The competitive situation of American and Canadian employers included within the same free trade zone is also dependent upon wider juridical and non juridical factors. As to the more pronounced degree of state intervention with respect to collective bargaining in Canada, its historical roots would tend to preserve it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".