MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2226225805 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1018

Legalized Age Discrimination

2005· article· en· W2226225805 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Thomas R. Klassen, C. T. Gillin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RgsuM.La retraite, et tout particulierement la retraite obligatoire, a pris de l'importance dans la politique gouvernementale du Canada.Cet article passe en revue et analyse la jurisprudence pertinente qui a t6 soigneusement formul&e, specialement par la Cour supreme du Canada, au cours des dernieres decennies.L'article considere brievement les decisions majeures survenues avant la Charte des droits et libertes dans les annees quatre-vingt, examine les changements intervenus en 1990 avec l'application de la Charte, analyse les developpements juridiques qui ont eu lieu au cours des cinq dernieres annes, et termine par une analyse des repercussions de ces changements juridiques sur les politiques gouvernementales.Nous maintenons que la Cour supreme a eu tort dans ses decisions initiales sur la Charte, qu'elle s'est appuy&e sur des raisonnements socio-economiques comportant des lacunes et n'a pas suffisamment pris en consideration les droits fondamentaux de la personne.Nous concluons que la retraite obligatoire est une forme de discrimination juridique et que la lutte contre les lois qui perpetuent la discrimination fond&e sur l'Age s'inscrit dans la droite ligne des efforts historiques pour batir une societe equitable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.473
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207