Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructive dismissal has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada as: ...where an employer unilaterally makes a fundamental or substantial change to an employee's contract of employment...a change that violates the contract's terms... the employer is committing a fundamental breach of the contract that results in its termination and entitles the employee to consider himself or herself constructively dismissed. The employee can then claim damages from the employer in lieu of notice. Consideration basically means that if the employer asks the employee to give up something (eg. a pension plan or to accept lower wages), it must also give up something - though not necessarily of equal value - in return. That could be a guarantee of a further period of employment, if the employment would clearly have been otherwise terminated. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Wolda wrote: "the employer cannot, out of the blue, simply present the employee with an amendment to the employment contract and say, 'sign or you'll be fired' and expect a binding contractual amendment to result without at least an implicit promise of reasonable forbearance for some period of time thereafter." The new agreement with each worker could be put under seal. The employer's lawyer should be consulted in order to ensure that the new reductions in the workforce will be enforceable. This method is preferable because it engages both parties, builds commitment in the new arrangement and reduces any chance of a legal dispute. Working with the employees affected to come up with an effective solution going forward is sound employment relations. Those employees who do not "play ball" with this method, can attempt to negotiate terms of voluntary withdrawal.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".