MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086905955 · doi:10.7202/1007819ar

“I Will Not Give You a Penny More Than You Deserve”:*Ontario v. Fraser and the (Uncertain) Right to Collectively Bargain in Canada

2012· article· en· W2086905955 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Alison Braley

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Law Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Supreme courtGood faithJurisprudenceUnderpinningMeaning (existential)Political scienceLaw and economicsLawRight to healthFaithHealth servicesSociologyHealth careMedicineEngineeringEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case comment first reviews the jurisprudence that most directly informed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Health Services . Second, this case comment applies the logic underpinning Health Services to the facts of the case at bar. The general argument is that Ontario v. Fraser represents an inconsistent application of two concepts that are central to the understanding of collective bargaining that the SCC had elucidated in Health Services : the meaning of “good faith” and “substantial interference”. The comment concludes that Ontario v. Fraser has narrowed the right to collectively bargain to a greater degree than both proponents and opponents of Health Services might have anticipated.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207