MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104656556 · doi:10.54648/ijcl2012022

The Dialogue between Canada and the ILO on Freedom of Association: What Remains after <i>Fraser</i>?

2012· article· en· W2104656556 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maude Choko

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreedom of associationAssociation (psychology)Political scienceLawHuman rightsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, providing protection for freedom of association in Canada. However, in spite of Canada's membership of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the early interpretations of the Charter by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) resulted in a failure to comply with its international obligations on freedom of association, since the right to strike and to collective bargaining were excluded from the protection of the Charter. After a period of two decades during which the initial interpretation was applied, the issue of the scope of protection granted to freedom of association by the Canadian Charter arose once again. This resulted in important case law rulings upholding constitutional protection of the 'right to the process to collective bargaining' with an impact on the dialogue on freedom of association between Canada and the ILO. The present paper examines the most recent decision of the SCC on this issue, Fraser, in connection with the dialogue between Canada and the ILO. This decision limits the constitutional protection granted to the right to the process to collective bargaining. More precisely, the paper evaluates the impact of Fraser on the dialogue and on future compliance by Canada with its international obligations relating to freedom of association.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial RelationsSame topicWorld Trade Organization LawFrench-language works237,207