MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521502688 · doi:10.54648/ijcl2016017

The Obligation to Be Available: The Case of the Trucking Industry

2016· article· en· W2521502688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Urwana Coiquaud

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationNormativeBusinessInterpretation (philosophy)Labour lawField (mathematics)Law and economicsLawPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, working time has become the central focus of productive organizations. However, the heterogeneity of employment status has transformed the nature of a homogeneous and uniform working time by introducing unpredictability. It is not clear whether labour regulation can decipher this reality in all of its dimensions, or whether it offers adequate protection. Our research will focus on the Canadian regulatory framework for working time among wage-earning unionized truck drivers in the for-hire trucking industry at the international or interprovincial level. After first examining the formal rules and their case law interpretation, we will seek to better understand the obligation to be available by using the field survey method, conducted in 2014, which is essential to ‘grasp law and social practices in their interactive dynamics’. The interviews reveal that, despite extensive regulation, drivers are nevertheless subject to an obligation to be available, which can be explained by the latitude the actors have in interpreting or using the formal statement of rules, a latitude that contributes to deteriorating working conditions among truck drivers. Thus, at the margins of formal labour law, a substantial informal normative system has developed which generates this third time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial RelationsSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207