A legal comparison between South African, Canadian and Australian workmen's compensation law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workers’ compensation originated internationally because of the need to address \nthe plight of workers and communities left destitute due to occupationally sustained \ndisabilities or death. This study examines how the right to no-fault compensation \ndeveloped in South Africa in comparison to the comparable law in Canada and \nAustralia. Specific limitations regarding the right to workers' compensation \npursuant to the South African compensatory laws were identified. Limitations \nidentified include the persons falling within the ambit of the law, circumstances \ncreating a right to compensation, the right to claims for increased compensation \nuniquely provided for in South African compensatory law and founded in the \nnegligent conduct of employers as well as common law redress for damages. The \nbackground of the administrative remedy in the form of the right to compensation \nfor occupational injuries and diseases ought to be seen in the light of the \nConstitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
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.
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".