A review of two decades of employment equity in Canada: progress and propositions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employment equity was officially sanctioned in 1986 with the passage of the federal Employment Equity Act (EEA). It follows a report from the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Equality of Employment by Judge Rosalie Abella who deemed that four designated groups, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, visible minorities and women, face insurmountable barriers leading to discrimination in employment. They were disproportionately excluded from the workplace because of their group membership, and most of the barriers they faced were systemic in nature. Consequently, the EEA was put in place to eliminate barriers in the workplace so that no person is denied employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability. The intent is to allow everyone to contribute evenly to the success of their employers and to the economic and social well-being of all Canadians. The term 'employment equity' was developed by Judge Abella, who headed the Royal Commission, to describe a distinctly Canadian process for achieving equality in all aspects of employment. The term was meant to distinguish the process from the primarily American affirmative action model. It was felt that the phrase 'affirmative action' elicited negative reactions and resistance from many because it has become associated with interventionist government policies and the imposition of quotas (Mentzer, 2002). Abella argues that, ultimately, it matters little which term is used since both terms refer to 'employment practices designed to eliminate barriers and to provide in a meaningful way equitable opportunities in employment' (Abella, 1984, p. 7).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".