In a Poor State: The Long Road to Human Rights Protection on the Basis of Social Condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how poverty in Canada might be alleviated with different forms of human rights protection that include protection from discrimination on the basis of social condition. Social condition discrimination could include denial of goods and services based on stereotypes of poverty, or could include disadvantage resulting from actual inability to pay. If based only on stereotypes, the author argues, social condition would be differentiated from other grounds of discrimination. Poor people need to be protected from the prejudice of others as well as the effects of being poor, and this may be accomplished by incorporating full social condition protection in both human rights legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada has international obligations concerning poverty, and those obligations are sometimes recognized by the courts in their decisions. However, economic rights have been consistently rejected as having Charter protection, perhaps out of fear that courts would be commanding the government to create or alter social programs. The author concludes that the Charter might still be the most effective place for economic rights, placing the initial onus more on the public sphere, which would at the same time consequently distribute some of the financial burden in the private sphere.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".