'Regulating Labor Disputes in the Police Services: Legal & Practical Perspectives from Ontario and British Columbia, Canada'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, have not seen a police strike in living memory. The reason for this is the mandatory interest arbitration model adopted in the two provinces, which sees disputes that cannot be resolved by mutual bargaining referred to a panel of arbitrators who assess submissions in light of statutory criteria. Police officers, and the unions who represent them, have utilized this model to increase pay and improve working conditions often, employers say, without regard to ‘ability to pay.’ This article assesses that claim against the results that the model produces and how insiders understand the system as operating. Its conclusion is that interest arbitration has produced good results, especially for police and emergency workers and the community they serve, but the means of getting there have soured relations and may need reform to remain sustainable into the future.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.071 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".