Le sort d’une instance d’arbitrage d’un grief après la réussite d’un recours en évocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le contexte des relations de travail, l’annulation par un juge de la Cour supérieure du Québec de la décision d’un arbitre disposant d’un grief, annulation prononcée au terme d’une requête en évocation prise en vertu du pouvoir de surveillance et de contrôle de cette cour, soulève un problème délicat. Le dossier doit-il alors retourner au même arbitre pour qu’il rende une nouvelle décision conformément aux instructions du tribunal ? Ou est-il préférable que le juge ordonne la remise des parties dans l’état où les procédures de grief étaient avant la nomination de l’arbitre, afin qu’un autre se prononce sur le grief ? Cet article consiste à faire l’étude et la critique de la jurisprudence sur le sujet, dans le but de proposer une solution motivée dans de telles circonstances.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".