Réflexions concernant le Renvoi relatif à la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case comment raises questions that have remained unanswered in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Reference re Employment Insurance Act, despite their importance for the women of Canada and for the population. The author also submits that the government handled the matter in this way so as to avoid engaging with the real social issues involved and thus left the responsibility to the highest court in the land. This, in turn, displaced the debate, which is crucial for the women of Canada and the situation of within from its essential core to conform to the usual decision-making model of Quebec versus Canada, which history has demonstrated to be ineffective and which forces advocates to tow the line or to be silent, depriving them of a public airing of their respective positions and hindering social progress in the country. Abstract: Le present commentaire aborde des questions qui sont restees sans reponse, en depit de leur importance pour les femmes du Canada et pour la population quebecoise, dans la decision de la Cour supreme du Canada dans le Renvoi relatif a la Loi sur l'assurance-emploi. L'auteure soumet en outre que cette facon des gouvernements d'eviter de regler les reels enjeux sociaux en en dechargeant plutot la responsabilite dans la cour du plus haut tribunal du pays eut pour consequence de vider un debat, autrement crucial pour les femmes du pays et la situation du au de ses dimensions essentielles afin de se conformer au modele decisionnel: «Quebec vs Canada» que, d'une part, l'histoire a demontre inefficace et qui, d'autre part, force les militants et les militantes a rentrer dans le moule ou a se taire, au detriment de leurs positions respectives et du «progres» social au pays.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".