Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E. is a clear example of the manipulability of legal doctrine and the power of political objectives. Well-established legal principles should have lined up neatly to support a favourable outcome for the equality rights claimants in NAPE, whose pay equity entitlements were, by the admission of the government, ‘‘erased’’ for a period of three years. This did not happen because the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the circumstances in NAPE were too exceptional to bear the application of the established rules. The Women’s Court of Canada decision in NAPE could have simply demonstrated how the established legal doctrine could and should have been applied to uphold the equality rights claim. However, this approach would have been too thin. It would not have done justice to the broader questions of substantive equality and government accountability that became more explicit as the case travelled up the judicial ladder. A related issue was whether to approach NAPE as ‘‘a section 15 case’’ or as ‘‘a section 1 case.’’ In the end, it was decided that this was not an either/or question. The outcome for the equality rights claim in NAPE was primarily determined by what the Supreme Court of Canada decided in relation to section 1 of the Charter, not what it decided on section 15. However, the Supreme Court’s section 1 decision was very much influenced by its approach to section 15. The Women’s Court of Canada decision tries to resist constructing section 15 and section 1 as separate legal containers and, instead, endeavours to connect them. The decision to incorporate a full section 15 analysis was easier than the task of doing it, however. In NAPE, a section 15 infringement was found at all levels of judicial and tribunal consideration. This finding made it more challenging to frame an alternative approach to section 15 and to demonstrate concretely the shortcomings of Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). From the broader perspective of women’s social equality, some of the story of sex-based wage discrimination and its relation to women’s economic inequality was included. The decision also articulates principles for using international law, a discussion that is often glossed over in Supreme
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».