Bibliographic record
Abstract
Would a codification of labour law — in the Continental meaning of the word, and not a mere consolidation of existing statutes — enhance the development of this field of law ? Would the resulting instrument be likely to generate more appropriate ways of dealing with labour situations, whether or not they pertain to a collective bargaining context ? Adjective as well as substantive law would have to be involved in such an exercise. The latter aspect raises the fundamental issue of the proper relationship between the general law — civil law essentially — and labour law. What degree of autonomy is necessary to the integrity of the specialized law ? Conversely, to what extent is the general law to be relied upon to provide the necessary second-line set of legal provisions ? For instance, the two sets of legal rules entertain different views as to the termination of the employment relationship and as to the effect of a collective agreement. A well-integrated body of labour law should, in the author's opinion, govern comprehensively labour situation. The codifying process would also aim at eliminating internal discrepancies and a simpler, more accessible legal subsystem would emerge. As to the adjective aspects of labour law, the identification of desirable forms of third-party intervention relating to both collective bargaining and labour standards legislation could lead to appropriate jurisdictional arrangements. In the case of industrial conflicts, of particular interest are the flexible powers of intervention with which the Canada and British Columbia labour boards are endowed. Consideration should also be paid to certain European models — namely the Conseil de prud'hommes — which allow both conciliation and adjudication to take place in the solving of normative law conflicts of application. A full-fledged Labour Code would indeed invite the setting up of a more authentic Labour Court.
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 | 0.033 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
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".