Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the question of the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association has been raised most frequently and persistently in the labour relations context The dual nature of the core labour rights and freedoms of collective organization, collective bargaining, and collective withdrawal of labour as both fundamental human rights and key components of economic policy makes it very difficult for courts to grapple with them in the constitutional context. The Supreme Court of Canada has been badly divided over the scope of collective activities by workers and unions protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of association over the past 30 years. Precedents have been overturned, and reasons that appeared in dissent subsequently figured in majority decisions. Changes in the composition of the bench as well as the economic and political climate have undermined the achievement of a principled consensus over the constitutional interpretation of section 2(d) in the context of labour relations. This judicial discord is a problem because, ultimately, the legitimacy of a constitutional court’s decisions rest upon its ability to provide convincing reasons. The deep jurisprudential divisions amongst members of the Supreme Court of Canada over the interpretation of freedom of association in the labour relations context were staked out in the Court’s earliest decisions. In order to illustrate the resurgence of the same repertoire of arguments, this chapter provides a chronological discussion of the freedom of association jurisprudence. Cases involving labour relations receive the greatest attention, and those that pertain to the scope of the freedom to associate are discussed before cases involving to freedom from association. The focus throughout is on the recurring tropes — the type of interpretive approach (abstract or contextual), the nature of the right or freedom (statutory, fundamental, individual, collective, negative or positive), the appropriate judicial stance (activist or deferential) and interpretive sources (domestic legislation and international law) — that shape the jurisprudence and that are at the heart of any endeavor to give principled content to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.011 |
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".