MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168181275 · doi:10.54648/ijcl2004011

Approaching Religious Discrimination at Work: Lessons from Canada

2004· article· en· W2168181275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucy Vickers

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Political scienceSociologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article contains an overview of the provisions of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, in force in the UK since December 2003, highlighting some of the difficulties which may face courts in dealing with religious discrimination in the workplace. It goes on to consider how such issues have been dealt with in Canada, where similar protection has been available for some time. Issues include how courts determine a person’s religion, how much effort is required of employers to accommodate the religious needs of employees, and how to deal with occupational requirements of religious bodies, in particular where these create a clash between different types of discrimination rights.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial RelationsSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207