LE RÔLE DU JUGE DANS L’ÉVOLUTION DU DROIT ET LA JURISPRUDENCE DU JUGE LEBEL EN MATIÈRE DE LIBERTÉS FONDAMENTALES LIÉES AU TRAVAIL
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his years on the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice LeBel put his stamp on the development of labour law by contributing, most notably, to the determination of the meaning and scope of freedom of expression and freedom of association. The first part of the paper presents a few of Justice LeBel’s reflections, which help us understand how he saw the judge’s role, his vision of Canada’s legal systems, and how he interpreted the Charter. The second part examines how that vision is reflected in certain decisions dealing with fundamental freedoms in a labour context. Justice LeBel played a key role in the evolution of freedom of association. The jurisprudence is now infused with international law, comparative law, and the history of labour, and is sensitive to how the challenges of globalization impact Canadian law. But beyond that extensive contribution, there is also and above all his vision of the law and the judicial function. A philosophical stance that is present throughout his jurisprudence influences his decisions on fundamental freedoms in a labour context.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it