Paid to Play - The Canadian Hockey League Players Class Action Litigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014, the National Labor Relations Board’s Regional Director ruled that scholarship football players at Northwestern University were “employees”. Subsequently, in 2015, the full board, and without deciding the players’ status, declined to assert jurisdiction effectively ending the dispute. There are parallels between this dispute and lawsuits currently before the Canadian courts involving the Canadian Hockey League (“CHL”). The CHL is nominally an “amateur” league and is the principal development league for players hoping to pursue a career as a professional hockey player. The players claim they are “employees” under provincial employment standards statutes. The CHL maintains that the players are “student athletes”, akin to NCAA Division I scholarship athletes. This article examines the similarities and distinctions between CHL players and NCAA Division I athletes, discusses the CHL litigation, the probable outcome, and the possible ramifications of this litigation for the CHL and its players. ∗
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".