Motion to Faculty Council re: Trinity Western University
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Motion to Faculty Council\nMoved by: Mary Jane Mossman Seconded by: Douglas Judson\nFaculty Council of Osgoode Hall Law School endorses the following statement with respect to the approval by the Federation of Law Societies of the law school at Trinity Western University: \nWHEREAS Osgoode Hall Law School is committed to the principle that diversity among faculty, students and staff is integral to an open and vibrant environment for teaching and learning law;\nWHEREAS Osgoode Hall Law School is committed to continual scrutiny and improvement in our practices of inclusion, and respect for the equality and human rights of all persons involved in teaching and learning about the law; and\nWHEREAS Osgoode Hall Law School acknowledges, with profound regret, discriminatory practices in the legal profession and in legal education in Canada, by which some persons have been excluded from the practice of law on grounds such as gender, race, religion and dis/ability. \nIN THIS CONTEXT, the Faculty Council of Osgoode Hall Law School respectfully requests Trinity Western University to eliminate the discriminatory language and content in its “Community Covenant” 1 on the basis that: \nThe “Community Covenant” at Trinity Western University constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status in relation to LGBTQ faculty, staff and students, by proscribing same-sex intimacy within or outside marriage (and opposite sex intimacy outside marriage); and that this discrimination will disproportionately affect faculty, staff and students who are members of some Christian communities; and\nThe “Community Covenant” at Trinity Western University will result in a disproportionate reduction in the relative proportion of places for the study of law in Canada - for students and potential students seeking to study law who are within the group excluded from Trinity Western University’s law school (particularly LGBTQ students); and that this disproportionate reduction in access to legal education in Canada constitutes discrimination and a denial of equality and access to justice for excluded persons. \nIN ADDITION, and in a spirit of welcoming diversity and embracing equality at Osgoode Hall Law School, Faculty Council requests the Dean and staff, in consultation with faculty and students, to make best efforts to: \nReaffirm Osgoode Hall Law School’s commitment to LGBTQ students by establishing and awarding annually a prize for the best law student essay on the subject of law, sexual orientation/sexual identity, and human rights/equality;\nReaffirm Osgoode Hall Law School’s commitment to teaching and learning that is respectful of religious values and religious persons by establishing and awarding annually a prize for the best law student essay on the subject of law, religion and human rights/equality; and \nReaffirm Osgoode Hall Law School’s commitment to potential LGBTQ students by establishing a scholarship or bursary for an LGBTQ student in financial need.\nIN PASSING THIS MOTION, Faculty Council of Osgoode Hall Law School agrees that: \nThe Chair of Faculty Council will forward this motion to Trinity Western University; and\nThe motion may be circulated by members of Faculty Council and the Osgoode community to other interested parties. \n1. Trinity Western University is a private, faith-based university affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church of Canada, in which faculty, staff and students are required to sign an annual faith statement, a “Community Covenant,” which creates a code of conduct. The “Community Covenant” (section 3) commits persons at Trinity Western University, inter alia, to “treat all persons with respect and dignity” and to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” The “Community Covenant” (penultimate para) also states that signatories “become an ambassador of this community and the ideals it represents.” ↩
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,658 | 0,459 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».