Damages — Power of board to award
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By a majority, the board in this case holds, first, that the question of whether a board of arbitration may or may not award damages is not one going to jurisdiction, but is a matter of the powers of a board once it is properly seised of the dispute under the collective agreement or under the relevant legislation. On the question of the power to award damages, it holds that this does not depend on the inclusion of a specific provision in the agreement. The object of the voluntary submission by the parties to arbitration of their disputes is that there shall be a final and binding settlement of the disputes, and a board of arbitration has an inherent power to award damages where any compensable loss is suffered by either party. By submitting to the board's adjudication the parties must be presumed to have intended to submit to a complete adjudication of the matter and a proper redress of any wrong suffered as a result of a breach by either party of its obligations under the agreement. Polymer Corporation Ltd and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union Local 16 - 14 - Arbitration award, Nov. 10th 1959, Bora Laskin, Q.C., C.L. Dubin, Q.C., M. O'Brien.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".