The Minimum Wage as a Matter of Tangible Human Dignity: A Comparative Constitutional Law Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to human dignity has been applied to numerous employment issues: loss of reputation, privacy, sexual and psychological harassment.Human dignity has less often been invoked in litigation involving tangible working conditions such as the minimum wage. These questions have traditionally been dealt with by employment legislation rather than human rights law. This article argues that minimum wage issues are also a matter of human dignity. In this respect, the adequacy and sufficiency of minimum wage regulations could be assessed in the light of the right to human dignity. In particular, we will examine minimum wage regulations in Quebec (Canada) with regard to the right to human dignity as laid down in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In order to substantiate the relationship between the minimum wage and human dignity, we intend to make use of comparative constitutional law. We will draw on the interpretation and application of human dignity developed in international law as well as in four jurisdictions: Quebec, Canada, Israel and Germany. Although Quebec and Canadian case law has applied human dignity to work issues, they have not developed its application to tangible working conditions. By comparison, international law, together with Israeli and German law, have developed the tangible dimension of dignity more extensively. These sources of law may help address the lack of attention on the part of the Quebec courts to the tangible dimension of dignity at work. We then turn to the Quebec minimum wage regulations to evaluate their sufficiency and adequacy in the light of the right to human dignity.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".