Proceed With Caution, or Stop Wherever Possible? Ongoing Paradoxes in Legalized Labour Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contributes to the debate over the role of Charter litigation as a vehicle for expanding labour’s power in Canada. Following a period of some consensus around labour’s need for a cautious approach to the Charter, recent court decisions concerning freedom of association have reinvigorated the inquiry into the Charter’s role in labour empowerment. This paper contributes to this debate through an examination of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Fraser v. Ontario (Attorney General). The paper provides a critical review of Fraser, understood as a clear expression of a key paradox within legalized politics, namely that while it sporadically offers progressive potential, legalized politics tends to reinforce and further legitimize the status quo, in an era when the ability of Canadian labour policy to remedy labour market and social inequality has clearly declined. On the one hand, Fraser extends recent judicial pressure on legislatures to protect freedom of association, and may have empowering consequences for agricultural workers, a relatively disadvantaged group. On the other, it furthers the legitimization and constitutional entrenchment of the Wagner model of effectuating freedom of association, and the narrow exclusive-majoritarian patterns of organizing and collective bargaining permitted by that model.
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 | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".