Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Korea, according to the case law, dependent contractors have been considered as independent contractors because they lack personal subordination to the other party of the contract, which is the most important indicia to be an employee. In terms of economic dependence, I believe dependent contractors are exactly the same as employee in quality and quantity. The only difference between them lies in the degree of personal subordination in terms of quantity. Recently, the salience of the legal distinction between employees and independent contractors has been changed a little by the Supreme Court. Court began to emphasize economic dependence in favor of the definition of employees. This can be considered as an positive approach. It can be a sign to widen its scope, as the emphasis has shifted from direct subordination to include economic dependence as the basis for extending labour protection to workers. However, the current approach the category of employees can be determined only by court gives parties instability to identify their legal relations. It is more desirable to give parties predictability to distinguish between employees and independent contractors. Especially, to identify the scope and definition of dependent contractors is very important. In this regard, in this article I have analyzed the Canadian approach to identify the scope of dependent contractors. I believe the Canadian approach can give us a clue to answer this difficult question.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".