MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149371404 · doi:10.25071/1916-9272.34374

The Precarious Future of Women's Equality: Access to Justice and the Court Challenges Program

2011· article· en· W2149371404 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vinessa Redford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Public Policy Administration and Law · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticePolitical scienceLawCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until its cancellation in 2006, the Court Challenges Program (CCP) enabled equality-seeking groups to challenge government infringements on the equality rights guarantee in Section 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Through an analysis of twenty-three cases focused on women‘s equality heard by the Supreme Court of Canada between 1985, when the CCP was expanded to fund equality litigation, and 2006, the year of the program‘s cancellation, this article examines how the CCP fostered access to justice. The analysis shows that the CCP funded forty-three per cent of women's equality litigation in this period. These findings will be of interest to those concerned with the current state of public policy, access to justice, and the advancement of women's equality in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Public Policy Administration and LawSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207