Les clauses dites « orphelins » et la notion de discrimination dans la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les clauses dites « orphelins » ont été introduites au Québec vers le milieu des années 80. Récemment, un débat très vif a eu cours au sujet de la validité de ces clauses. La question du caractère discriminatoire ou non des clauses « orphelins », par rapport à la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, a occupé fréquemment le devant de la scène au Québec pour aboutir à l'adoption, par l'Assemblée nationale, du projet de loi n" 67 modifiant la Loi sur les normes du travail. Cet article présente d'abord le concept de discrimination et ses possibilités d'application au phénomène des clauses « orphelins », étudie la portée des exceptions au principe de discrimination dans l'emploi qui pourraient faire écran à d'éventuelles plaintes en ce domaine, pour examiner enfin la juridiction respective de la Commission des normes du travail et de la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".