Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’expose analyse l’egalite des sexes dans les programmes de sports universitaires selon la legislation sur les droits de la personne. Il propose de comprendre dans quelle mesure et de quelles facons la cause de l’egalite des sexes dans les sports universitaires pourrait etre avancee grâce au recours de procedures juridiques et d’institutions chargees de l’administration et du renforcement des droits de la personne. La decision qu’a prise l’Universite du Nouveau-Brunswick – soit celle de mettre fin a sa ligue universitaire de hockey pour femmes - et la politique universitaire sur l’egalite des sexes fournissent le contexte factuel d’une etude de cas qui montre a quel point les administrateurs du domaine sportif pourraient atteindre ou non l’egalite des sexes dans les sports universitaires. La conclusion affirme que l’egalite des sexes dans les sports accuse un retard par rapport aux autres spheres sociales, rendant ainsi les etablissements et les personnes vulnerables a la responsabilite legale. Cette etude fournit un cadre de travail analytique qui permettrait de gerer ce risque. This paper analyzes gender equality in university sport programs through the lens of human rights legislation. It queries if and how the cause of gender equality in university sports might be advanced through the use of legal mechanisms and institutions charged with the administration and enforcement of human rights guarantees. The decision of the University of New Brunswick to cancel its Women's Hockey Varsity Team and a faculty policy on gender equity form the factual matrix of a case study that demonstrates how sports administrators may achieve or defeat gender equality in university sports. This study concludes that gender equality in sport trails the advance of that goal in other social spheres, rendering institutions and individuals vulnerable to legal liability. The paper provides an analytical framework that would manage this vulnerability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".