Le « Right to request flexible working » : un outil favorable aux employés proches aidants ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, a national consultation has mentioned the possibility of introducing a new right whereby workers will be entitled to request flexibility in their schedule or workplace, in the model of “RTR flexible working” seen in Anglo-Saxon countries. Our article focuses on the impact of this right in three Commonwealth countries where it was established in the 2000s. We analyze the effectiveness of RTR as a public policy instrument to change managerial attitudes towards accommodating employees with complex family responsibilities, such as caregivers. Our review of the literature suggests that RTR has had a limited impact in workplaces, but that it has led certain employers to provide employees with greater flexibility. Abstract: Au Canada, une consultation nationale a évoqué la pertinence d’instaurer un nouveau droit : les travailleurs pourraient demander à leur employeur un aménagement flexible de leur temps ou de leur lieu de travail, à l’image du « RTR flexible working » anglo-saxon. Notre article s’intéresse à l’effet de ce droit dans trois pays du Commonwealth où il a été instauré au cours des années 2000. Nous analysons sa pertinence en tant qu’instrument de politiques publiques visant un changement d’attitude managérial face aux accommodements que souhaiteraient des employés ayant des responsabilités familiales complexes, comme les proches aidants. Notre revue de la littérature montre que le RTR a eu un effet mitigé dans les milieux de travail, mais qu’il amène certains employeurs à offrir plus de mesures de flexibilité à leurs employés.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads 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".