The Dialogue between Canada and the ILO on Freedom of Association: What Remains after <i>Fraser</i>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".