Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s doctrine of deference to administrative decision-makers was built on foundations provided by labour relations arbitrators and tribunals. With Vavilov, however, those foundations have shifted. In the formative years of the Canadian law of deference, front-line labour relations decision-makers could rely on their expertise and privative clauses to provide shelter from judicial oversight. Post Vavilov, expertise must be demonstrated – it cannot be presumed – and privative clauses give no special protection to administrative decision-makers, not even in the labour relations area. This foundational shift has serious implications for the Canadian labour relations community: there is now a de facto requirement to provide reasons for decisions; these reasons must be justified in respect of the facts and law, demonstrate the application of expertise and be responsive to the central arguments and evidence; and counsel defending decisions on judicial review cannot invoke background context which is not laid out in the reasons. In this short article, I lay out the origin story of contemporary Canadian administrative law, briefly describe its evolution in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, describe the key features of Vavilov and a post-Vavilov decision which illustrates the brave new world of labour relations decision-making.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".