Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article brings further historical and international perspective to the “labor rights as human rights” debate. It particularly contends that these perspectives need to be explored further in order to appreciate the extent to which the definitions and political implications of key ideologies behind labor and human rights activism are flexible and dependent on their context. It explores Canada in the 1940s and early 1950s, when there was major activity on the labor and human rights fronts. Although many Canadian organizations, legal systems, and campaigns were modeled on—or formally affiliated with—American ones in these years, the progress of labor and human rights activism followed a distinct path, and particularly unfolded at a distinct pace. This distinct pace, the relatively small size of ethnic and racialized minority populations, the basic political and legal structure, and rise of a leftist third party in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation all helped labor and human rights activism fit together comfortably to a notable extent in Canada. This article will particularly show why the relationship between human rights and labor was significantly less fraught with potential downsides for Canadian labor leaders. It also highlights another important impact of context: the particular combination of conditions and forces in Canada produced a number of unexpected results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".