MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161392856 · doi:10.1300/j031v12n03_04

Human Rights Enforcement Agencies and the Protection of Older Workers Against Discrimination

2001· article· en· W2161392856 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging & Social Policy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionEnforcementAgency (philosophy)Human rightsBusinessAge discriminationPolitical scienceLawPublic administrationSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article provides insight into the way a human rights enforcement agency, the Quebec Human Rights Commission, implements legal dispositions prohibiting age discrimination in employment. Drawing on data from claims filed before the Commission, the article establishes a quantitative profile of cases and examines the factors that are involved in the decisions made by the Commission. It is argued that (1) the Commission's approach in investigating age discrimination cases and (2) the burden of proof put on respondents are main contributing factors to a very limited number of cases being validated. However, despite apparent shortcomings, the Commission still fulfills an important role in defending and promoting older workers' rights. Its overall impact can be assessed only in connection with other social and employment policies geared at older workers. In conclusion, some recommendations to improve the functioning of the Commission are made.

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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.319 · 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