Le Langage Des Accommodements Raisonnables: Quelles Perspectives Pour L'Égalité Des Enfants Handicapés En Milieu Scolaire? (The Language of Reasonable Accommodations: What Prospects for Equality of Disabled Children in Schools?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Au Canada, le concept des accommodements raisonnables est ne de l'evolution du droit a l'egalite et du besoin de repondre aux exigences d'une societe qui se veut respectueuse des differences. L'impact positif que l'utilisation de ce concept semble avoir eu sur la situation des minorites religieuses et des personnes handicapees dans le domaine du travail amene cette etude a se pencher sur l'utilisation actuelle et potentielle des accommodements pour repondre aux revendications parentales dans le contexte de l'education des enfants handicapes. L'etude se concentre particulierement sur la question de l'integration en classe reguliere, qui a ete examinee par les tribunaux a plusieurs reprises. Malgre des differences limitant les comparaisons avec les accommodements religieux ou en milieu de travail, il appert que certains elements de la jurisprudence dans ces contextes, ainsi que l'application du droit international, pourraient aider a forger une approche plus systematique aux demandes liees a l'education des enfants handicapes.English Abstract: In Canada, the concept of reasonable accommodations was born from the evolution of equality rights and from the need to respond to the demands of a society that strives to respect differences. The positive impact that the concept seems to have had for religious minorities and persons with disabilities at work leads this study to look into the current and potential use of accommodations in response to parental demands related to the education of children with disabilities. The study concentrates particularly on the issue of inclusion in regular class-rooms, which courts have dealt with on many occasions. Despite differences that restrict comparisons with religious accommodations and accommodations in the workplace, it appears that certain aspects of jurisprudence in those contexts, as well as the application of international law, could help to forge a more systematic approach to claims related to the education of children with disabilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".