MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201384182 · doi:10.29173/alr283

“Lest You Undermine Our Struggle”: Sympathetic Action and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2015· article· en· W201384182 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Keir J.M. Vallance

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterStatutory lawLawTortPolitical scienceAction (physics)Common lawLabour lawLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this new era of recognized constitutional labour rights, one aspect of labour relations — sympathetic action — remains, for the most part, judicially unexamined. This article examines the case law to demonstrate that there is a constitutional argument that both the statutory prohibition on sympathetic action, and the hostility to sympathetic action in the common law of contract and tort, infringe on the freedoms in section 2 of the Charter. However, there is no necessary connection between a right to undertake sympathetic action and a right to strike, nor is freedom of association the only Charter right that can protect sympathetic action. Ultimately, an absolute ban on sympathetic action under Canadian labour law violates the Charter and must be removed; and the hostility of the law of tort and the law of contract to sympathetic action also contravenes Charter values.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0280.037
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207