Le droit à L'égalité sous la loupe de la théorie critique du handicap (The Right to Equality and Critical Disability Theory)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article presente un courant particulier d’analyse critique du droit : la theorie critique du handicap. Il examine de quelle maniere les travaux rattaches a ce courant peuvent aider a eclairer le concept d’egalite reelle en droit canadien (art. 15 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes). L’article expose les fondements de la theorie critique du handicap et montre comment cette theorie, dans ses principes, explique la creation du handicap et y oppose, en reponse, une conception enrichie de la notion de citoyennete pour les personnes en situation de handicap. Un constat s’impose : pour etre effective, cette approche exige de s’attaquer aux fondements systemiques des inegalites observees- ce a quoi la jurisprudence canadienne semble plutot reservee. L’auteur innove en proposant de reconnaitre que le concept d’egalite reelle doit inclure une nouvelle dimension : celle de la representation, qui permet aux personnes en situation de handicap d’etre parties prenantes aux decisions qui les concernent. English Abstract: This article presents a particular movement of critical analysis of law: the Critical Disability Theory. It examines how the work associated with this movement may provide a better understanding of the concept of substantive equality in Canadian law (Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The article outlines the founding principles of Critical Disability Theory. It shows how this theory, in principle, explains the creation of disability and opposes it, in response, an enhanced conception of the concept of citizenship for people with disabilities. One point must be made: to be effective, this approach requires addressing systemic inequalities- whereas Canadian jurisprudence seems rather reserved. The author suggests that the concept of substantive equality must include a new dimension: that of representation, which enables people with disabilities to be involved in decisions that affect them.
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 | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".