Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ms. Rebick discusses the history of section 15 and argues that it is important to note that it was the women’s movement and the burgeoning disability rights movement that fought to strengthen the language of section 15 against some considerable resistance on the part of the Liberal government of the day. The strong equality rights language of section 15 is due to the creativity, mobilization, and persistence of the women’s movement. Whatever the legal impact of the Charter the political impact has been overwhelmingly positive. Whether or not women have actually won rights under section 15, women believe that they have the right to equality and that is incredibly important. In fact, Canadians believe deeply in the equality rights of the Charter and this belief has helped to fuel equality rights movements in Canada that have been mobilizing over the last decades up to and including the most recent example of gays and lesbians in the same-sex marriage struggle. Ms. Rebick notes that the women’s movement considered the inclusion of section 28 a major victory for equality rights in Canada, our Equal Rights Amendment. Yet in the history of Charter litigation and despite the dismal record of litigation on gender equality for women, section 28 has rarely been used. Lawyers see section 28 as a back up to section 15 rather than as a counter to section 1 and perhaps some discussion on section 28 would be a useful way to improve the court record on women’s equality.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".