The Fight for Substantive Equality: Women's Activism and Section 15 Of The Charter of Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article discusses the role of women’s groups in the development of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter’s principal equality rights guarantee, entrenched in the Constitution in 1981. Thanks to the leadership of Doris Anderson, submissions to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women (CACSW), the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC), and the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) were instrumental in securing changes to section 15. However, the version in the entrenched Charter still fell short of women’s aspirations. Résumé Cet article aborde le rôle des groupes féministes dans l’élaboration de l’article 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, principale garantie de l’égalité des droits dans la Charte, incorporée à la Constitution en 1981. Grâce au leadership de Doris Anderson, les soumissions au Comité mixte spécial sur la Constitution du Canada faites par le Conseil consultatif canadien sur la situation de la femme (CCCSF), le Comité canadien d’action sur le statut de la femme (CCASF) et l’Association nationale Femme et Droit (ANFD) ont joué un rôle déterminant dans l’obtention des modifications à l’article 15. Toutefois, la version incorporée à la Charte ne répondait toujours pas pleinement aux aspirations des femmes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".