Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act describes Canada’s National Transportation Policy as follows: “It is declared that a competitive, economic and efficient national transportation system that meets the highest practicable safety and security standards and contributes to a sustainable environment and makes the best use of all modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to serve the needs of its users, advance the well-being of Canadians, and enable competitiveness and economic growth in both urban and rural areas throughout Canada.” The policy goes on to say that to achieve these objectives, among other things, the transportation system must be “accessible without undue obstacle to the mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities.” As the economic regulator for the federal transportation system, the Canadian Transportation Agency’s mandate is exercised in a way that supports Canada’s National Transportation Policy. The Canadian Transportation Agency is an independent federal agency responsible for dispute resolution and economic regulation in the Canadian transportation industry. It works to remove obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities by developing regulations and voluntary codes of practice, and by resolving individual disputes formally through adjudication and informally through mediation and facilitation. In this paper, the author discusses how the Agency balances the often conflicting economic interests of transportation service providers and the equality rights of persons with disabilities within Canada’s federal transportation network. She also describes some recent landmark Agency decisions that illustrate this delicate balancing act and a ruling by the Supreme Court, Canada’s highest court, that clarified the Agency’s mandate and jurisdiction in dealing with accessibility issues.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".