Academic Freedom, Canadian Labour Law and the Scope of Intra-Mural Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Murray Library is the central library at the University of Saskatchewan. In January 2013, the Library Dean announced that ten support staff in the University’s library system, including several working at the Murray Library, were to be laid off. All were women. After each staff member had been individually informed by the Dean that she was being laid off, she was told to collect her possessions and was then immediately escorted off the campus property. The layoffs were part of a University-wide cost cutting measure, which would ultimately result in 40 layoffs among the support staff across the campus. The support staff were unionized, in a bargaining unit represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The University librarians were also unionized, in a separate bargaining unit represented by the University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association. In the librarians’ collective agreement was a broadly drafted provision protecting academic freedom. Among other things, the provision guaranteed the right of the unionized librarians “…to criticize the University and the Association without suffering censorship or discipline.” This provision did not contain any language which would restrict the scope of its protection to reasonable or responsible comments. This right of faculty and librarians to criticize the university leadership is known, among the various features that make up academic freedom, as the freedom of intra-mural expression.1 * Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Western University, London, Ontario, where he teaches labour law, human rights law, and constitutional law.1 See generally Matthew Finkin & Robert Post, For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2009), ch 5.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".