Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article 61.5 du Code canadien du Travail aura bientôt quatre ans. À la rédaction de la présente étude, pas moins de 45 décisions arbitrales avaient été rendues sous son empire. Conçu pour limiter l’arbitraire dans le congédiement d’un employé non protégé par une convention collectlive, l’article 61.5 a suffisamment vécu pour permettre d’en dresser un bilan. C’est à l’étude des conditions d’exercice du recours ouvert à l’employé et du pouvoir arbitral y consécutif que se dessinent les forces et faiblesses de l’article 61.5. La substance même de l’article accuse des failles profondes notamment en ce qu’elle autorise à remettre la victime d’un congédiement injuste à la merci d’un employeur déjà récalcitrant. Les arbitres, pour leur part, se sont quelquefois enlisés dans des interprétations tantôt évasives, tantôt étroites et qui les ont éloignés de l’uniformité attendue d’une telle institution. À ces maux, quelques solutions méritent d’être formulées, comme le fera la conclusion.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".