Unifying the Field: Mapping the Relationship Between Work Law Regimes in Ontario, Then and Now
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the mid-20th century in Canada, labour and employment law have been treated as two separate but related fields. In 1981 Brian Langille argued in “Labour Law is a Subset of Employment Law” for the unification of the fields, so that all forms of waged work were understood as matters of public policy, rather than leaving some types of work to private law regulation. Taking up Langille’s argument, this paper argues that employment contracts, individual and collective, are structured through the overlap, interaction and gaps between work law regimes. The creation of a unified field moves from studying the regimes in isolation to studying the relationship between them, particularly the common law, labour law and minimum standards legislation. Adopting such a focus leads us backward to retell the historical story of the relationship between the regimes in the mid-20th century. It also points us forward towards new questions about how the regimes interact to structure employment contracts, and how their gaps and interactions are acting to build and sustain inequalities in the context of changing forms of work.\nDepuis le milieu du XXe siècle au Canada, le droit du travail et le droit de l’emploi sont traités comme deux domaines distincts mais liés. En 1981, Brian Langille a plaidé dans « Labour Law is a Subset of Employment Law » pour l’unification des deux domaines, afin que toutes les formes de travail salarié soient comprises comme des questions d’intérêt public, plutôt que de laisser certains types de travail à la réglementation du droit privé. Reprenant l’argument de Langille, nous soutenons dans le présent article que les contrats de travail, individuels et collectifs, sont structurés par le chevauchement, l’interaction et les lacunes entre les régimes de droit du travail. La création d’un domaine unifié permet de passer de l’étude isolée des régimes à l’étude des relations entre eux, en particulier la common law, le droit du travail et la législation sur les normes minimales. L’adoption d’une telle approche nous amène à revenir en arrière pour raconter l’histoire des relations entre les régimes au milieu du XXe siècle. Cela nous amène également à nous poser de nouvelles questions sur la manière dont les régimes interagissent pour structurer les contrats de travail, et sur la manière dont leurs lacunes et leurs interactions contribuent à créer et à maintenir des inégalités dans le contexte de l’évolution des formes de travail.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".