Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteure soutient que la langue est fondamentale dans le processus de revendication et d'adjudication du droit a l'egalite. Le processus judiciaire transforme les experiences de discrimination. D'une mise en paroles d'un besoin et d'un traumatisme, elles deviennent un jeu de mots avec des consequences importantes. La caracterisation des decisions analysees dans le present article comme une participation dans un jeu de mots n'a pas pour objet de banaliser ni d'amoindrir la gravite des consequences pour les parties demanderesses, pas plus que d'occulter les difficultes inherentes dans la recherche d'equilibre entre des interets en concurrence. Il s'agit plutot d'un outil d'analyse visant a enqueter sur les possibilites de construction du sens, en utilisant le concept de la dignite comme moyen d'elargir l'interpretation des droits a l'egalite prevus dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes. Abstract: The author argues that language bears a heavy burden in the process of claiming and adjudicating equality rights. The legal process transforms experiences of discrimination from an articulation of trauma and need into a high stakes language game. Characterizing the cases analyzed in this article as moves in a language game is not meant to trivialize or undermine the severity of the consequences for the claimants nor is it intended to de-emphasize the difficulties inherent in balancing competing interests. It is meant as an analytical tool to investigate the possibilities for meaning making, using the dignity interest as a means to expand the interpretation of the equality rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".