Book Review of 'Work on Trial: Canadian Labour Law Struggles', edited by Judy Fudge and Eric Tucker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unions in Canada are passing through a difficult period: their membership levels are at their lowest levels since the 1950s, the fruits of collective bargaining have not been robust lately, economic inequality is growing, and labour law reform is virtually non-existent. A new edited book of essays on various labour battles over the past 85 years -- involving human rights, employment fairness and union recognition -- may remind Canadians about the centrality of work in our lives, and the many forms that the struggle for individual dignity and fairness has taken. Work on Trial is a lucidly written and astutely argued collection that tells of the individual stories of employees in a range of occupations who all turned to the law as a last resort and went on to win seminal workplace benefits and historic employment and human rights. The book reminds us that laws which establish rights or address social concerns do not emerge fully-formed from enlightened legislators and judges, but invariably arise first from the tiny struggles of individuals who join together for a broader purpose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".