Bibliographic record
Abstract
This critique of Brian Langille’s famous “Subset” article considers the historical and current meaning of “employment law” in Canada and in the UK. In Canada, “employment law” was fashioned by Innis Christie in the 1980s as the law of personal work relations for the non-unionized sector, with “labour law” applying to the unionized sector of the economy. In the UK, “individual employment law” appeared in the 1970s to be a distinct discipline; but since that time it has largely re-merged with labour law, with the terms “employment law” and “labour law” becoming virtually synonymous. An enlarged scope is proposed for the whole subject as “work relations law,” in which individual and collective elements are combined; and finally it is argued that Langille’s seminal article proposed a similar over-arching framework for the subject as a whole, rather than subordinating its collective to its individual aspect as it initially appears to do.\nLa présente critique du célèbre article de Brian Langille « Labour Law is a Subset of Employment Law » examine la signification historique et actuelle du « droit de l’emploi » au Canada et au Royaume-Uni. Au Canada, le « droit de l’emploi » a été conçu par Innis Christie dans les années 1980 comme le droit des relations de travail personnelles pour le secteur non syndiqué, alors que le « droit du travail » s’appliquait au secteur syndiqué de l’économie. Au Royaume-Uni, le « droit individuel de l’emploi » est apparu dans les années 1970 comme une discipline distincte ; mais depuis lors, il a largement fusionné avec le droit du travail, les termes « droit de l’emploi » et « droit du travail » étant devenus pratiquement synonymes. Nous proposons un champ d’application élargi pour aborder l’ensemble du sujet en tant que « droit des relations de travail », dans lequel les éléments individuels et collectifs sont combinés; et enfin, nous avançons que l’article fondateur de Langille proposait un cadre global similaire pour l’ensemble du sujet, plutôt que de subordonner son aspect collectif à son aspect individuel comme il semblait le faire initialement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".