MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463624090

CDPDJ c. Bombardier Inc: Réflexion Sur Le Lien Requis Entre La Différence De Traitement Et Le Motif Illicite De Discrimination (CDPDJ v. Bombardier Inc.: Reflection on the Required Link Between the Adverse Treatment and the Prohibited Ground of Discrimination)

2014· article· fr· W2463624090 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexis Aubry

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: Le dossier Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c Bombardier inc (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center) offre l’occasion de se pencher sur le lien requis entre la difference de traitement et le motif illicite de discrimination selon la Charte quebecoise. Dans ce texte, l’auteur soutient, tout d’abord, que le lien doit etre etabli entre le motif prohibe et l’exclusion subie, et cela tant en matiere de discrimination directe qu’indirecte. Ensuite, il se questionne sur la nature de ce lien. A cet effet, il precise que le motif illicite ne doit pas necessairement constituer l’unique ou le principal fondement de l’exclusion, mais plutot etre l’un de ceux-ci. Compte tenu de ces elements, l’auteur propose ensuite une methode unifiee devant servir de guide aux tribunaux lors de l’analyse de la preuve prima facie de discrimination. Ainsi, lors de la seconde etape du test de l’article 10, le demandeur aura le fardeau d’etablir, tant en matiere de discrimination directe qu’indirecte, que le motif prohibe a ete l’un des fondements de l’exclusion subie.English Abstract: The facts in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c Bombardier inc (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center) give us the opportunity to address the required link between the adverse treatment and the prohibited ground of discrimination under the Quebec Charter. In this text, the author argues, firstly, that the link must be established between the prohibited ground of discrimination and exclusion suffered, in both direct and indirect discrimination. Then, he questions the nature of the link. He specifies that the prohibited ground should not necessarily be the sole or the principal ground of the exclusion, but rather one of them. Given these elements, the author then offers a unified methodology to provide guidance to courts when they analyze the prima facie evidence of discrimination. Thus, in the second step of the section 10 test, the plaintif has the burden to establish, in both direct and indirect discrimination, that the prohibited ground of discrimination was one of the bases of the exclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207