Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wagner Act Model has formed the basis of Canada’s collectivebargaining regime since World War II but has come under intense scrutiny inrecent years because of legislative weakening of collective bargaining rights,constitutional litigation defending collective bargaining rights and decliningunion density. This article examines and assesses these developments, arguingthat legislatively we have not witnessed a wholesale attack on Wagnerism, butrather a selective weakening of some of its elements. In the courts, it brieflyappeared as if the judiciary might constitutionalize meaningful labour rights andimpede the erosion of Wagnerism, but recent judicial case law suggests theprospects for this outcome are fading. While the political defence of Wagnerismmay be necessary when the alternatives to it are likely worse, holding on to whatwe’ve got will not reverse the long-term decline inunion density. The articleconcludes that at present there are no legal solutions to the labour movement’sproblems and that innovative efforts to represent workers’ collective interestsoutside of formal collective bargaining provide a more promising alternative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".