MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572565470

Symes v. Canada

2006· article· fr· W1572565470 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melina Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtShadow (psychology)Political scienceWork (physics)Constitutional rightInequalityLawSociologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The result in Symes v. Canada is troubling on a number of levels. The failure to challenge the long-standing social norms associated with gender roles and the division of labour in the household and the lack of acknowledgment of the public good of caring for children continue to cast a long shadow on the struggle for women’s equality. At the same time, the tax rules at issue in the case afford only a narrow opportunity to recognize the important connection between women’s inequality and society’s continued failure to ensure that women do not bear unfair burdens as an incident of motherhood. Nor does the claim give rise to a comprehensive solution to the urgent need for publicly funded high-quality childcare and the undervaluing of the work of childcare providers. The case was controversial within the women’s movement in Canada for precisely these reasons. My aim in re-casting Symes was to fully address the substantive equality concerns in this case, which I see as a limited but important opportunity to press for the reconstruction of tax systems and employment systems so that they fully reflect women’s realities as well as men’s. I have a personal interest in Symes because I served as co-counsel with J.J. Camp, Q.C., to the intervenor, the Canadian Bar Association, in the Supreme Court of Canada. It was my first major equality rights case. The Women’s Court of Canada project has provided me with an opportunity to explore my initial sense of outrage at, and long-simmering dissatisfaction with, the majority decision in a concrete, disciplined fashion. More importantly, it was a chance to develop an equality analysis that can discern and address the structural, as opposed to the biological, dimensions of women’s inequality. I took seriously the structure and authoritative voice necessitated by the judgment format. While I wrote with a heightened sense of responsibility for every word, I thoroughly enjoyed the exercise. At a conceptual level, I wanted to explore the role of Canadian courts in advancing social justice through the adjudication of equality rights claims. My starting point is that Canadian governments have repeatedly committed themselves to equality through ratification of international human rights instruments and the adoption and gradual strengthening of domestic human rights legislation. The Canadian Constitution is the cornerstone to this

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et DroitSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207