Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION On November 3, 1980, members of the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped (COPOH) held a protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to assert their demands for recognition in a proposed new constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The protest was the first time that people with a range of disabilities gathered together from across Canada to loudly and publicly claim the right to disability rights. The proposed Charter contained a section explicitly guaranteeing equality rights on some grounds, such as sex and race, but did not accord such protection to the rights of Canadians with disabilities. Previous calls by activists with disabilities to gain a voice in the constitutional process had failed, and the activists' frustration culminated in the demonstration. Yvonne Peters, a long-time activist and human rights lawyer who was both present at the protest and active in the Charter lobby effort, writes, “People with disabilities were just beginning to experience the promise of rights, and we were resolved not to let the architects of the Charter diminish or undermine this potential by ignoring our claim to legally recognized equality.” In the end, disability as an enumerated ground was added to the list of grounds protected by the proposed Charter at the eleventh hour in the Constitutional negotiations after a relentless lobbying effort on the part of these activists and their allies. As a result, Canadians with disabilities can now call on the promise of equality contained within the Charter to combat discrimination, exclusion, and marginalization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.082 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".