Like Oil on Troubled Water: A Labour Perspective on the Charter Labour Jurisprudence of Justice Louis Lebel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Justice LeBel has made highly significant and positive contributions to the development of the Supreme Court’s Charter labour jurisprudence. During his tenure, the Labour Trilogy of the 1980s was overturned and the constitutionalization of important labour rights under section 2(d) of the Charter emerged. Justice LeBel led the way towards infusing the jurisprudence with international, comparative and labour history methodologies and alerting it to the implications of globalization. These contributions have fundamentally altered the Court’s views on the basic function of labour law, one that accords with the broad, purposive and liberal construction of other Charter rights as protective of vulnerable interests. He put to rest a very troubled common law history, and overcame an incoherent and narrow early Charter labour jurisprudence. His version of freedom of association can afford to be broad and liberal because its articulated purpose will prevent an application to associational activities that should not be protected while protecting those that advance the legitimate interests of disadvantaged groups. These momentous changes are welcome as they enhance the legitimacy of the Court and the Charter for working people, but they have created some uncertainty about the circumstances in which the Court will depart from constitutional precedent.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".