Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision from the Supreme Court of Canada (January, 2015) is a landmark case in that, after a twenty-eight year judicial lead-up, it finally confirms the right to strike as guaranteed by the Charter’s Section 2(d) freedom of association. The decision found the provincial government’s unilateral authority over designating essential services during a work stoppage to be unconstitutional. The decision is indeed a victory for unions that goes far beyond the particular issues in the case and will have ramifications for years to come. This paper presents a preliminary look at the decision and discusses four interrelated areas of labour law that will be affected. The downside of this decision, however, is the finding that amendments to Saskatchewan’s Labour Relations Act that are designed to make organizing more difficult, are constitutional. This decision continues a trend in labour legislation that will undoubtedly help undermine the much needed organizing in Saskatchewan in the face of declining union density, particularly for the fast growing cadres of precarious workers who need unions. This aspect of the decision, which represents the loss of a rare opportunity for the Court to support organizing, will also be discussed briefly.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| 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".