Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focusses on the relationship between technological change and the labour relations system circumscribed by the Québec Labour Code. While a teleological interpretation of bargaining rights of certified associations by labour jurisdictions seems to have dealt adequately with the impact of such changes on certification, the doctrine of residual management rights, in the context of fixed-term agreements entrenched in the Québec Labour Code, appears to be, in the opinion of the author, unduly rigid and restrictive. The Freedman Report on Railway run-through and the subsequent discussions surrounding the Woods Commission Report in the 1960's, resulted in the inclusion in the Canada Labour Code of provisions pertaining to the possible adjustment, through collective bargaining, of collective agreements in the context of such technological changes. Various provisions to the same effect have subsequently been inserted in the Labour Codes of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British-Columbia. The Report of the Beaudry Commission recently proposed that the Québec Labour Code be similary modified by the inclusion of analoguous provisions. The author suggests that a reform along the lines thus suggested is, in principle, desirable to ensure a more equitable adaptability of our legal categories to the imperatives of technological change.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".