Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many governments of the world established or are establishing their own national institutions responsible for the protection and promotion of the equality. There are two types of the national institution for the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws: the one focused on the discrimination and the another comprehensive nation human rights institution. Anti-discrimination Commissions of the U.S. and Canada belong to the first type. They are role-models of the anti-discrimination Commission for another nations. The american federal Institution that enforce anti-discrimination laws of the U.S. is the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The agency conducts the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws focusing on the area of occupation (workplace). The EEOC is composed of 5 commissioners, including a Chair and a Vice Chair, who are appointed for five-year by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As laws that are enforced by the EEOC, there are ① Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII, 1964), ② the Equal Pay Act (EPA, 1963), ③ the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA, 1967), and ④ the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990). Types of discrimination against that the U.S. anti-discrimination laws protect individuals are ① Age Discrimination, ② Disability Discrimination, ③ Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination, ④ National Origin Discrimination, ⑤ Pregnancy Discrimination, ⑥ Race-Based Discrimination, ⑦ Religious Discrimination, ⑧ Retaliation, ⑨ Sex-Based Discrimination, and ⑩ Sexual Harassment. The EEOC is characterized by close liaison with courts of law and active using of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR). The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is the canadian national Institution that enforce anti-discrimination laws of Canada. The Commission protects individuals from discriminatory practices not only on the area of occupation, but also on another areas related discrimination. The anti-discrimination laws administered by CHRC are ① Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA, 1976-1977) and ② Employment Equity Act (EPA, 1995). According to the CHRA, it is unlawful to discriminate on the ground of ① race, ② national or ethic origin, ③ colour, ④ religion, ⑤ age, ⑥ sex, including pregnancy and childbearing, ⑦ sexual orientation, ⑧ marital status, ⑨ family status, ⑩ physical or mental disability, including dependence on alcohol or drugs, ⑪ pardoned criminal conviction. The characteristics of the CHRC are the dualism of the anti-discrimination institution: CHRC and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) and strengthening and promotion of services of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR), including arbitration, mediation, negotiation, conciliation, etc. The korean national institution that has the responsibility to ensure the korean anti-discrimination law (the National Human Rights Commission Act: NHRCA, 2002) is a comprehensive national human rights institution. The agency works to protect and promote human rights including both freedom and equality. It is necessary for the members of the korean National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to strengthen their professional knowledge and experience and their sensitivity to human rights. And NHRC is required to reconstruct his role as the national institution for the anti-discrimination. Finally, it is needed to introduce actively and promote alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services that the anti-discrimination Commissions of the U.S. and Canada are using increasingly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".