MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561793365 · doi:10.21991/c96h34

The SCC Reimagines Freedom of Association in 2015

2016· article· en· W2561793365 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ritu Khullar, Vanessa Cosco

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrilogyFreedom of associationSupreme courtLegislationCharterCollective bargainingCorollaryPolitical scienceLawAssociation (psychology)WageHuman rightsHistoryPsychologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After reviewing the evolution of the Court’s approach to freedom of association (though excluding the Court’s discussion of the corollary freedom not to associate), this paper reviews the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 cases on freedom of association, also known as the 2015 Labour Trilogy, and discusses their implications: Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (AG) addressing the right to join a union; Meredith v Canada (AG) addressing legislation overriding predetermined wage increases; and Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan addressing the right to strike.The paper then discusses how the 2015 Labour Trilogy reinvigorated the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how it applies to strikes not directly relative to collective bargaining.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207