A Cripple at a Rich Man's Gate: A Comparison of Disability, Employment and Anti-discrimination Law in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article décrit l'histoire de l'équité en emploi et de la législation des droits humains, en ce qui concerne les personnes handicapées aux États-Unis et au Canada. Il compare les approches législatives et judiciaires des deux pays au problème d'accomplir l'égalité pour les citoyens handicapés dans les lieux de travail. En comparant, il aborde les aspects tant positifs que négatifs des deux juridictions. En conclusion, il suggère que le Canada intègre les approches «universelles» et «holistiques», incorporées dans les parties sur l'environnement de la ADA américaine, ainsi que dans les décisions judiciaires canadiennes, afin de créer une solution législative originale. Il suggère que les lois canadiennes qui priorisent l'égalité pour les handicapés devraient se rapprocher des lois portant sur la santé et la sécurité au travail, en exigeant que tous les employeurs respectent une norme d'accessibilité universelle à tous les lieux de travail, indépendamment de la présence ou du nombre d'employés handicapés.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".