Disability Disclosure in the Digital Age: Why the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Should Reform its Approach to Anonymized Decisions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a critique of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s (HRTO) approach to the anonymization of applications brought on the ground of disability. First, I examine the test for obtaining an order for anonymity and the application of this test by the HRTO. The HRTO has consistently held that the importance of open justice outweighs an individual’s privacy concerns about disclosure of disability in a public decision unless there are "unique" or "exceptional" circumstances. I discuss social science evidence related to disclosure of disability and the potential deterring impact of the HRTO’s current approach to anonymization on applicants with disabilities. I argue that the HRTO should order anonymization in all cases advanced on the ground of disability when the applicant does not wish to disclose her/his disability in an HRTO decision. I outline why the HRTO’s current application of the open justice principle is
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it