Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an age of globalization and privatization, local governments and municipalities are searching to define their social role and place. In an aging society such as Canada, arguing that promoting the legal rights of older persons should be part of the legal authority of the municipal government is not simple. It is easier to abide by the position that, without an efficient centralized machinery, social and environmental problems will remain unsolved or unaddressed. This article presents a different understanding of the place of municipal government in Canada. The goal of this article is to present an original legal-policy argument: It is time for local communities and local governments in Canada to use their legal authorities to enact local bylaws that define and establish the rights of their older citizens. The argument maintains that local municipalities hold the legal power and the social potential to make a significant contribution in the legal sphere for promotion of the rights of older people, and that this power has been neglected. The article supports the argument on three pillars: (1) an empirical analysis of bylaws in different municipalities across Canada; (2) a socio-legal analysis of the advantages of municipal law as a tool for social change; (3) a case analysis of a recent municipal legal reform in British Columbia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".