Bibliographic record
Abstract
The duty to accommodate family status has garnered significant attention in recent years due to the changing nature of familial obligations. Courts, tribunals and arbitrators alike have struggled with how to define the concept of family status accommodation, resulting in two conflicting tests. The uneven application of these tests has led to a variance in case law regarding how broadly family status accommodation should be interpreted. This paper will begin by examining the evolution of the duty to accommodate in labour law. The two tests that have divided the Canadian jurisprudence and the subsequent problems that arise from each test will then be examined. This paper will then analyze recent cases that have attempted to combine the two approaches to create a new amalgamated approach. It is proposed that this amalgamated test is the proper test for family status accommodation, as it strikes the appropriate balance between the various competing interests and will not unduly favour the employer or the employee in future family status claims.
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 | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".