MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400612535 · doi:10.1093/indlaw/dww012

From Control through Command to the Control of Discretion: Labour Time, Labour Property and the Tools of Managerial Control in Early Twentieth Century Ontario

2016· article· en· W2400612535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Mummé

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Law Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabour lawCommon lawDiscretionJurisdictionControl (management)LawNormativeChoice of lawNarrativeFreedom of contractWork (physics)Property (philosophy)Law and economicsPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsManagementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The common law contract of employment is often described as the ‘original’ form of modern work regulation, and tales of its origins feature in many historical narratives about the development of modern labour law. But despite its reputed pedigree and normative centrality, the historical development of the common law of employment contracts has not received significant attention. This paper begins to address this gap by investigating the evolution of the common law of employment contracts in the early twentieth century in one common law jurisdiction, the Canadian province of Ontario. Between the 1890s and 1930s the courts of Ontario applied a newly emerging legal paradigm from England, constructed around changing notions of property in employment, employment duration and the tools of managerial control. These ideas served to reorganise the common law of employments by simultaneously placing limits on the content of the exchange in an employment contract, while expanding employers’ rights of control so as to permit them to regulate workers’ exercise of discretion. Together these developments solidified Ontario’s first modern common law paradigm regarding work, ideas that would remain more or less in place until the early 1960s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial Law JournalSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207