Bibliographic record
Abstract
A developing line of case law suggests there is little space for workers’ remarks on social media platforms even before discussion of employers’ proportionate responses . Workers are being disciplined (up to and including termination) for online remarks because employment contract clauses have vest ed employers with a unilate ral authority to assess workers’ online speech based on the expansive threshold of what may be embarrassing to or what may lower business reputation. While a legitimate concern itself, the singular focus on business reputation fosters a chilling effect at a time of unprecedented facilities for individual free speech. A comparison of United Kingdom and Canadian cases on social media in the workplace of fers an instructive contrast where, in Canada, there is greater scope for expression than in the UK. While the Canadian decisions le ad to fertile discussion of pressing social issues, they are not idealized . Rulings in both countries remain susceptible to further difficulties , such as the capacity for information technology to expose workers and employers alike to legal risk beyond the ‘work day’.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".