Promouvoir l’accessibilite a l’aide de la loi: un appel a une reforme legislative au Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article traite de l’évolution des lois à l’égard des personnes handicapées au Québec. Il démontre les lacunes importantes du cadre législatif actuel, illustrant ainsi la nécessité d’une réforme législative pour assurer le droit à l’égalité des personnes handicapées. En 1978, l’Assemblée nationale adopta la Loi assurant l’exercice des droits des personnes handicapées, loi fort avant-gardiste pour l’époque. Cette loi créa l’Office des personnes handicapées du Québec (l’OPHQ) et comprenait plusieurs dispositions visant l’amélioration de l’accessibilité des services et des lieux publiques. La loi de 1978 fut amendée en 2004 pour modifier les obligations du secteur public et pour redéfinir le rôle de l’OPHQ. Malgré ses amendements, la loi québécoise manque du mordant. Contrairement aux cadres législatifs dans d’autres juridictions, la loi québécoise s’applique seulement au secteur public et elle ne contient aucune mesure efficace de mise en œuvre. En conséquence, d’innombrables obstacles continuent à limiter l’inclusion et la participation sociale des personnes handicapées au Québec. This article traces the evolution of Quebec’s disability legislation. Pointing out important gaps in the current legal framework, it demonstrates the need for legislative reform to ensure the full inclusion of people with disabilities in Quebec society. In 1978, the National Assembly adopted the Act to secure handicapped persons in the exercise of their rights. This cutting-edge law contained several measures aimed at improving the accessibility of public services and spaces. It also created a government Disability Office, the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec (OPHQ). This law was amended in 2004 to redefine the role of the OPHQ and to modify the obligations of the public sector. Despite these amendments, Quebec’s disability legislation lacks teeth. Unlike laws in other jurisdictions, Quebec’s disability law only applies to the public sector and it lacks strong enforcement mechanisms. As a result, Quebecers with disabilities continue to face countless barriers in exercising their right to equality.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".