Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attempts to trace how the infuriatingly elusive concept of equality has been applied in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and more specifically, Section 15, commonly referred to as the equality provision. It suggests that a critical analysis of the historical application of this concept across various social groups of individuals (race, gender, disability) can bring to the forefront essential aspects of a notion of equality designed to promote justice for not only, but principally, people with disabilities. More pointedly, by distinguishing the differences in the application of the principle of equality in reference to the treatment of marginalized social groups, it argues that we might better uncover precisely what it is that is required of the institution of law when applying the equality provision. Ultimately, it arrives at the conclusion that decisions concerning people with disabilities tend to promote a lesser form of flourishing than those concerned with race or gender. This is the case for at least the two following omissions in disability-related judgments: (i) the recognition of the intrinsic worth of functionings; (ii) the recognition of historically situated prejudices and norm-constructed social arrangements.Keywordsdisability, charter, equality, race, gender
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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".