Considérations sur la nature, le rôle et l'influence de la doctrine en droit du travail au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerations on the nature, role and influence of authoritative writings or doctrine in Québec labour law. Authoritative writings or « doctrine » may be defined as follows : « the aggregate of writings that constitute a source of law inasmuch as they may affect law through the actions of the courts or the legislator ». The following hypothesis may then be formulated : although everything points towards an increased development of such writings or doctrine in labour law, several factors have retarded this development. The needs for such research is illustrated via various examples. These needs can be felt in legislative circles, for instance, concerning questions raised over the present consultative committee on labour created by the Québec government for revising the Labour Code. The same applies to the courts in, for example, recent decisions on basic principles applying to collective labour relationships. The article also summarily describes various obstacles hindering the development of authoritative writings which may be divided into objective ones (i.e., recent law, uneven development viz-à-viz North American laws, widespread jurisdictions, lack of researchers, constraints on the university milieu) and subjective ones (i.e., lack of openness in the labour relations milieu, an idealized conception of what doctrine is all about and the knack researchers have for taking on activities linked to practice). Lastly, several desirable orientations for research are mapped out: the penetration of law in labour relations (« juridicisation ») and the invasion of adjudication (« judiciarisation »), the empirical effects of labour law and an integrated and comparative history of Québec labour laws.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".