Human Rights and Family Responsibilities: Family Status Discrimination Under Human Rights Law in British Columbia and Canada -- A Study Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British Columbia Human Rights Code, like all human rights statutes, prohibits discrimination in a variety of contexts, including employment, service or facility customarily available to the public, and tenancy, where differential treatment is linked to a prohibited ground. The original list of grounds included race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry and place of origin. The list has gradually been expanded over the years to include religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation and age. Human rights statutes have existed in Canada for about fifty years, and early anti-discrimination laws can be traced back to the 1940s; however, the appearance of family status as a prohibited ground is relatively new. This ground first appeared in a Canadian human rights statute in 1981, and was added to the B.C. Code in 1992.To date there has been little consideration of the ground of family status. This Study Paper aims to: (1) conduct a thorough review of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to the family status ground in Canada; (2) describe the issues and problems with treatment of the family status ground in B.C.; (3) develop scholarly research and analysis of issues relating to the family status ground; (4) foster discussion regarding the purpose and function of the family status ground in contemporary law and society; and (5) identify further questions for consideration to give effect to the notion of inclusive communities and respect for diversity of family configurations in B.C.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".