Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolA une epoque ou les principes antidiscriminatoires sont acceptes a grande echelle, les cas de discrimination directe n’apparaissent que peu souvent, et l’attention est alors attiree vers les effets prejudiciables des normes apparemment neutres. La preuve d’effets prejudiciables presente des defis uniques bien evidents. L’auteurse concentre sur l’application de principes fondamentaux de la discrimination par suite d’un effet prejudiciable pour prouver une cause prima facie. Cette discussion cadre dans le contexte du droit du travail avec une attention speciale aux poursuites pour discrimination par suite d’un effet prejudiciable intentees par les employes a temps partiel. La jurisprudence europeenne etablissant que la discrimination contre les employes a temps partiel peut representer de la discrimination indirecte contre les femmes fait contraste avec une cause canadienne. La decision de la Cour d’appel federale en reponse a ces poursuites intentees par un travailleur a temps partiel illustre le besoin important d’insister sur les principes de base regissant la preuve prima facie de la discrimination par suite d’un effet prejudiciable. L’auteur conclut que plus de direction est requise de la part des tribunaux canadiens pour elucider la demarche canadienne a l’egard de la preuve de discrimination par suite d’un effet prejudiciable. EnglishIn an era where anti-discrimination principles have gained widespread acceptance, cases of direct discrimination arise infrequently, and attention is increasingly drawn to the adverse effects of apparently neutral standards. Proof of adverse effect discrimination presents unique evidentiary challenges. The author focuses on the application of fundamental principles of adverse effect discrimination to proof of a prima facie case. This discussion is framed within an employment law context, with a particular focus on the example of adverse effect discrimination claims by part-time employees. European case law establishing that discrimination against part-time employees can amount to indirect discrimination against women is contrasted with a Canadian case. The Federal Court of Appeal decision in response to this claim by a part-time worker illustrates the need for a strong emphasis on the basic principles governing proof of a prima facie case of adverse effect discrimination. The author concludes that further guidance from Canadian courts is needed to elucidate the Canadian approach to proof of adverse effect discrimination.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".