Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thought-provoking book, Douglas Brodie speculates on the possible implications and future evolution of recent judicial developments of the common law of contract for the contract of employment. He mainly relies on the case law of England and Wales and Canada, with some other references to Scotland, Australia and the USA. At the core of the book is a discussion of the impact of relational contract scholarship and the growing judicial use of the standard of good faith in performance of contracts. The book also gives some attention to other topics: employment as a fiduciary relationship (chapter 2), the potential impact of enterprise liability (chapters 3–5), and the relationship between the common law and statute (chapter 12). There is an introductory chapter about ‘judicial values’, and a convenient summary of the predictions of future developments appears in the closing chapter. The work draws on previously published essays, but includes substantial new work. The methodology is almost entirely an analysis of judicial decisions. Reference to the extensive scholarly literature is sparse and then often to the author’s own publications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".