MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983887152 · doi:10.1111/1468-0335.00241

Optimal At‐will Labour Contracts

2001· article· en· W1983887152 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomica · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsEnforcementLabour lawEconomicsEconomic JusticeLabour economicsLaw and economicsEmployment contractLawBusinessMicroeconomicsPolitical scienceWork (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An at‐will employment rule allows parties to sever their employment relationship for ‘a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all’[Schawb, S. (1993) Life‐cycle justice: accommodating just cause and employment at will. Michigan Law Review , 92 , 8‐‐62]. A specific performance employment rule allows any party to force the other party to perform as specified in the contract. Although the theory of labour contracting generally assumes enforcement by specific performance, in practice, the vast majority of non‐union employment relationships are mediated by an at‐will rule. When employment contracts are enforced by an at‐will rule, I show that the ‘standard’ counter‐intuitive predictions generated by standard labour contracting models disappear.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.018

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.180 · 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