MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342194562 · doi:10.25071/1705-1436.71

A Federal Anti-Scab Law for Canada? The Debate Over Bill C-257

2009· article· en· W2342194562 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Larry Savage, Jonah Butovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJust Labour · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“...there is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes.”- Preamble to the Canada Labour Code here is a scene in the film Billy Elliot of replacement miners being bused in to work in Northern England while the striking workers pelt them with eggs and insults. The striking miners tell the replacement workers that they might as well be stealing the food they needed to feed their families. While images like these are rare in Canada today, picket line confrontations are no less tense. The fact that most businesses in Canada are allowed to hire people to do the jobs of striking workers is still very contentious among interested parties. This article reviews the arguments for and against adopting an anti-scab law and considers what impact such laws have on unions, businesses and individual workers. This article will then look at the constellation of players in today’s debate: governments, political parties, labour organizations, and the business community. The article will focus on the Canadian Labour

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0280.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0170.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJust LabourSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207