Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract Among those pursuing the vocation, study, or practice of labour law or employment law, there is a considerable consensus, albeit sometimes a reluctant one, that the contract of employment is at the core of their subject or discipline—as much the ‘cornerstone of the edifice’ as when Sir Otto Kahn-Freund so characterized it in 1954, though now for rather different reasons which will emerge in the ensuing chapters of this work. In the course of 2013, a group of labour law scholars working in Oxford conceived of a new project of writing about this ever-foundational topic, and began to gather together the consortium of authors who have written and edited this work. Our subject matter has been loosely formulated as the English law of the contract of employment, by which we mean more precisely the law of the contract of employment in the law of England and Wales, but with quite frequent reference to Scots law and occasional reference to the law in Northern Ireland. This necessarily and appropriately includes some reference to European Union law and European human rights law; and some comparative reflections are included, specifically in the shape of chapters making comparison with the evolution, from common or closely related origins, of the law of the contract of employment in Australia and Canada. This should not, however, be regarded as a project of writing about ‘the common law of the contract of employment’ alone: much of our attention has been devoted to understanding and analysing the relationship in this particular juridical context between ‘common law’ and ‘statute law’, which we see as a central feature, one might almost say the central mystery, of the modern law of the contract of employment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.478 | 0.367 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".