An Equal Opportunity Commission and Governance in a Plural Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper first looks at the basic features of a plural model and applies it to Trinidad and Tobago. It demonstrates the problems that were likely to emerge in any plural society where one group was allowed to maintain political control indefinitely. It investigates complaints of discrimination that emerged during the period 1956-1990 in this country. Various reports illustrate, one group dominated the bureaucracy and membership on the state boards, while the other majority group was excluded. Suggestes that while previously many remedies were put in place to address grievances, ethnic and otherwise, in employment and other practices, they were largely ineffective. Thus in 1997, the incoming government, the United National Congress proposed that an Equal Opportunity Commission and Tribunal should be established. While it was found that the Equal Opportunity Legislation that was introduced in Trinidad and Tobago in 1999 did not address concerns of group discrimination, this paper argues that the individual approach to discrimination rather than an indirect or group approach was a more preferred alternative. There was no doubt that such legislation would allow individuals to voice their concerns, for these concerns to be investigated, and for proper mechanisms to be put in place. It concludes that the Equal Opportunity Legislation introduced in the case of Trinidad and Tobago was a vital element in helping to promote more effective and 'good' governance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".