Acomodo razonable en Canadá y discriminación indirecta en Europa como garantía del principio de igualdad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo lleva a cabo un estudio comparado entre la noción de acomodo razonable desarrollada por el Tribunal Supremo de Canadá y la de discriminación indirecta utilizada por el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, aplicadas ambas en contextos multiculturales como garantía del principio de igualdad. El análisis del recorrido jurisprudencial de ambos tribunales, a través de casos que pueden considerarse paradigmáticos, permite estudiar el criterio de razonabilidad. Se ahonda así en los límites de estos instrumentos como, por una parte, la carga excesiva y el interés preponderante del Estado, y por otra, la proporcionalidad y el margen de apreciación estatal. Con ello, se apuesta por la necesidad inaplazable de articular políticas de gestión de la diferencia que hagan de ella un valor positivo, en lugar de un problema a gestionar. Al mismo tiempo, se aboga por conceptos que permitan llegar a la igualdad efectiva en el uso y disfrute de los derechos, fortaleciendo la pluralidad democrática que requieren las sociedades actuales.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".