MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412901149 · doi:10.35631/ijlgc.1040042

DISCONNECTING IN A CONNECTED WORLD: COMPARATIVE LEGAL APPROACH TO THE RIGHT TO DIS-CONNECT

2025· article· en· W4412901149 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harlida Abdul Wahab, Rohana Abdul Rahman, Siti Zubaidah Othman, Nik Ahmad Kamal Nik Mahmod, Nurfairuz Noordin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Law Government and Communication · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPusat Pengurusan Penyelidikan dan Inovasi, Universiti Utara Malaysia
KeywordsLaw and economicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology and digital world nowadays have resulted in constant connectivity at the workplace, even outside the working hours making the work boundaries become blurry. This transformation from the traditional 9 to 5 working hours to unlimited 24/7 has raised concerns about work-life balance, mental health, and employee well-being. Owing to this, the emergence of the right to disconnect as a legal and policy issue has taken place in many countries. Starting with France that introduced right to disconnect in her legislation, other European countries seemed to follow the practice and extended beyond Europe continent to countries such as Canada, Ireland and Australia, even though the approaches are diverse. This paper explores comparative legal approaches to the right to disconnect, analyzing how different jurisdictions have addressed this challenge through legislation. By examining legal frameworks in selected countries in the European countries such as France, Spain and Italy, together with Canada and Australia, this study highlights the diversity of regulatory strategies and enforcement challenges. The paper concludes with recommendations as a way forward for Malaysia in balancing business needs and employee rights in an increasingly digital world.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Law Government and CommunicationSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207