MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128197607 · doi:10.3138/ccar_v9i1_203

Employment Class Actions: Is the Work Culture of Banks Under Attack?

2013· article· en· W7128197607 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Class Action Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvertimeLegislationClass actionWorking classWork (physics)Labour lawClass (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employment class actions in the banking sector are setting off alarm bells at some of Canada’s preeminent financial institutions. The newest installation, Rosen v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc, will represent the first class action certified in Canada involving a “misclassification” of investment advisors (IAs) by their employer. A potential 1,600-member class of current and former IAS is bringing an action against BMO Nesbitt Burns for unpaid overtime under the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000. Although federal employment legislation was amended in 2006 to exclude overtime for “commission-based sales people” working in federally regulated banks, the provincial legislation did not follow suit. Nesbitt had always excluded IAs from overtime pay on the basis that they were commission-based employees. The crux of the dispute will hinge on whether Nesbitt can benefit from the exemptions to overtime pay under provincial employment legislation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.265 · 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