From Rand to Rothstein: Labour Law, Fundamental Values and the Judicial Role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labour relations in Canada is regulated by an intricate statutory regime that reflects an ongoing and contentious balancing of interests, a task uniquely apposite to the functions of deliberative, responsive democratic bodies. At the same time, labour relations regimes also implicate fundamental constitutional interests of the highest order, including freedom of association and equality, which the Courts are both well placed and commanded to uphold. As a result, it is unsurprising that the field of labour relations has always been a crucible for the murky, but critically important, issue of the appropriate division of labour between the democratic and judicial branches in a liberal democracy. This tension has animated the contributions of Justice Rothstein to constitutional labour law throughout his tenure on the top court, and the purpose of this paper is to place labour law’s historic struggle with this issue alongside Justice Rothstein’s more recent contributions. In doing so, the authors seek to clarify what is still at stake in this debate, and to draw out some key insights shared by our best thinkers, from Rand to Rothstein.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".