Failing to Achieve Equality: Disability Rights in Australia, Canada, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RtsuMtAu cours du quart de si&le &oul6, la discrimination contre les personnes handicapees a attir6 de mani~re accrue l'attention au niveau mondial en tant que question de droits de la personne.En consequence, l'Australie, le Canada et les Ptats-Unis ont d~ploy6 des efforts pour garantir la protection de cette section de la communaut6 A travers diverses initiatives l6gislatives et d'initiatives A orientation pr~d~termin~e.Cet article propose une comparaison critique des m&anismes de rbglement de diff~rends en mati~re des personnes handicapp6s et des arrangements en place pour le suivi des rapports de mise en oeuvre.Pour atteindre cet objectif, l'article examine dans quelle mesure les dispositions 16gislatives en place favorisent les droits et libert6s des personnes handicap6es dans ces trois pays.Cette 6tude s'inscrit dans le cadre de l'6mergence d'une approche fond6e sur la reconnaissance des droits des personnes handicapes.Un examen l~gislatif exhaustif des dispositions de protection l6gislative dans chacun de ces pays aux niveaux constitutionnel, f~d6ral et provincial ou d'etat, fournit le fondement pour une analyse comparative qui vise les protections constitutionnelles, les Lois anti-discriminatoires applicables, les programmes de prestations specifiques et les manifestes volontaires sur les droits de la personne.Les conclusions tir6es A la fin 6tablissent un constat du succ~s, ou du manque de succ~s, des efforts consentis par chaque gouvernement pour mettre en pratique ses politiques.* Brendon D. Pooran is a student-at-law with McCarthy Thtrault LLP, and a board member of the Canadian Abilities Foundation.**Cara Willie articled with ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities and is currently an associate at bakerlaw.1. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, "CCD Calls for UN Convention on
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".