MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7010331443

IBEW, Local 2228 v NAV Canada

2003· article· en· W7010331443 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal case studies and regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)SalarySign (mathematics)ContinuationPaymentThird party
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Employer withheld the Grievor's pay and benefits owing under the salary continuation provision of the Agreement for a period of 12 days because of his refusal to sign a consent form required by the Employer's third party provider authorizing release of the Grievor's medical information to the provider. The Union does not dispute that the Employer had the right to require that the form be signed, nor the employer's having withheld the pay until the form was signed. The Union's position is that once the Grievor signed the form he was entitled to the pay being withheld. The Employer's position is that by failing to sign the form, the Grievor forfeited his right to the pay.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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