My Friends Muddy the Waters: How a Statement of Principles Became a Public Fiasco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August 2012, the Law Society of Upper Canada struck The Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees Working Group, which conducted an investigation into the issue of systemic racism in the legal professions. The Working Group released its Final Report in 2016, and all 13 of its recommendations were adopted at Convocation on Dec. 2, 2016. The first of these recommendations to be implemented, a Statement of Principles, was introduced in 2017. Soon after its announcement there was loud and volatile opposition to this requirement, and eventually a constitutional challenge before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This paper provides the first investigation into the constitutional issues behind the Statement of Principles, in the interest of addressing any concerns of compelled expression, and encouraging the legal professions to work together to collectively promote equality, diversity, and inclusion.
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 | 0.035 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".