MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797895580 · doi:10.25071/1705-1436.183

Union Democracy and the Law in Canada

2002· article· en· W2797895580 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael Lynk

Bibliographic record

VenueJust Labour · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceDemocracyHumanitiesStatutory lawAutonomyTrade unionLawEthnologySociologyPoliticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legal approach in Canada towards the regulation of trade union democracy has sought to balance individual member's rights with respect for the autonomy of unions. While the United States and England have heavily legislated the areas of internal trade union affairs, Canada has enacted relatively few laws in this area. Rather, unions in Canada have enjoyed considerable legal freedom to develop their own democratic practices and culture. The irony of this approach is that it is the Canadian courts, rather than the more experienced and liberal labour relations boards, that are the final legal arbiters over most internal union matters. However, this is slowly changing. Several provinces have recently enacted modest changes that direct their labour boards to hear complaints from union members respecting the fairness of internal hearings. In the absence of extensive statutory regulation, union constitutions and the democratic traditions behind them become significant legal documents. Au Canada, l’approche juridique à l’égard de la réglementation de la démocratie syndicale a consisté à chercher à mettre en équilibre les droits des membres et l’autonomie des syndicats. Les États-Unis et l’Angleterre ont une multitude de lois sur les affaires internes des syndicats, mais le Canada n’a adopté que relativement peu de lois à cet égard. Les syndicats du Canada ont joui d’une liberté juridique considérable dans l’établissement de leurs pratiques et de leur culture démocratiques. L’ironie de cette approche est que ce sont les tribunaux canadiens plutôt que les conseils des relations du travail, plus expérimentés et ayant moins de préjugés, qui sont les arbitres de dernier recours sur la plupart des questions syndicales internes. Toutefois, la situation change peu à peu. Plusieurs provinces ont adopté dernièrement de modestes modifications législatives ordonnant à leurs conseils des relations du travail d’entendre les plaintes de membres de syndicats au sujet de l’équité des audiences internes. En l’absence d’une réglementation étoffée, les statuts des syndicats et les traditions démocratiques qui les sous-tendent deviennent d’importants documents légaux.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0340.015
Scholarly communication0.0150.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJust LabourSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207