MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986737100

Re Canada Post Corp and CUPW

2002· article· en· W6986737100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal case studies and regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingPosition (finance)JurisdictionGrievance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A previous Grievance which alleged improper staffing was successful and resulted in an Award which required that the affected employees receive an offer for the positions they would have had if filled properly. The Arbitrator retained jurisdiction regarding the implementation of the Award. A subsequent hearing regarding the Grievor resulted in an order to offer her the position she had been denied. The Grievor accepted the position, but with her own conditions. This hearing is to consider if she accepted the position or, by adding conditions, rejected the offer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3560.125

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicLegal case studies and regulationsFrench-language works237,207