FROM STATUTORY RIGHT TO HUMAN RIGHT: THE EVOLUTION AND CURRENT STATUS OF COLLECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
much to the surprise of the Canadian labour relations community, affirmed the human rights status of collective bargaining. Taken by a distinguished group of jurists who have no professional human rights or employment relations grounds to defend or proselytize, that decision may be seen by history to be a turning point in the way that collective bargaining is conceived and evaluated in Canada. Although long counted as a human right by experts and advocates, in Canada (as well as the United States and some other countries) prior to the Supreme Court decision, it was neither treated by governments as a human right nor regarded by the public as a human right (Burkett 2005). It was treated instead as, if not exactly an ordinary partisan issue, no more than a statutory right; one which political parties of the left might strengthen and expand and parties of the right might contract and fetter. Despite the failure of governments to protect and promote it as a human right, Canada was among the more enthusiastic supporters of collective bargaining’s human rights status in the international arena (Adams 2002).
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 | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.118 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".