Services publics – Arbitrage – Critères de détermination des salaires dans les services publics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un tribunal d'arbitrage décide (l'arbitre syndical étant dissident) que les employés du secteur public ne doivent pas être traités différemment de ceux des autres secteurs, et qu'en conséquence il doit tenir compte des disparités économiques d'une région à l'autre quand il décide des échelles de salaires. Il n'est pas de la compétence d'un tribunal d'arbitrage d'opter pour l'application de la théorie de la parité des salaires dans les services publics, à l'échelle de la province, dans le but exclusif d'atteindre à la correction des infériorités économiques au niveau des régions. C'est plutôt là la fonction des partenaires sociaux et du législateur.1 (1) Hôpital Ste-Anne-des-Monts et le Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital Ste-Anne-des-Monts; Ministère du Travail, Bulletin d'information No 1842-1964, 18 juillet 1964; Me Jean Bérubé, c.r., président; M. André Moisan, arbitre patronal; Me Magella Lemay, arbitre syndical (dissident); pour la partie patronale: Me Paul Lebel, c.r.; pour la partie syndicale: M. Jacques Archambault, M.R.I.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".