MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982354024 · doi:10.7202/1065174ar

Mandatory Dues Check-off Reviewed in Light of the US Supreme Court’s Decision in the Janus Case

2019· article· en· W2982354024 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gilles Trudeau

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtLawConstitutionLegislationCharterPolitical scienceFreedom of associationState (computer science)Constitutional rightHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States Supreme Court has recently ruled in the Janus Case that the agency shop (mandatory dues check-off) imposed by Illinois law on state employees violates the freedom of expression and association guaranteed by the US Constitution. This decision underscores the profoundly different status enjoyed by the Rand Formula in Canada, where it is considered an essential element of the nation-wide Wagner-type collective bargaining system. Not only is it permitted everywhere, legislation has made it mandatory, in one way or another, in a majority of Canadian jurisdictions, including Quebec. Furthermore, almost 30 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that mandatory dues check-off did not interfere with the freedom of association or expression protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0130.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industrielles→Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→