Has the Charter Made a Difference for People with Disabilities?: Reflections and Strategies for the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in promoting the equality rights of people with disabilities through the lens of the social model of disablement. This stands for the proposition that structural barriers and attitudes in society are the primary cause of the marginalization of people with disabilities. Through a critical examination of key Supreme Court of Canada cases such as Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) and Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada Inc., the paper maintains that even in those cases where advocates for people with disabilities lost, the Court nevertheless articulated a cogent understanding of the social model of disablement. The paper the n identifies two important recent developments, Canada’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the passage of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, that hold promise for increased accessibility in the future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".