MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894643393

GENDER-BASED ANALYSIS PLUS (GBA+) AS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

2018· article· en· W2894643393 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVettingPolitical scienceMisnomerConstitutional lawCharterLawLaw and economicsConstitutional rightSociologyConstitution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is renewed interest in some quarters in the executive’s role in the implementation of constitutional rights. Canada currently employs a rights vetting process as its primary instrument of rights implementation. This process involves asking whether a proposed law is likely to be found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on judicial review. This article examines whether gender-based analysis plus (“GBA+”) can also be understood as a mechanism for implementing constitutional rights, and equality rights in particular. GBA+ is an assessment process used in Canada to evaluate how new policy proposals fare from the standpoint of equality. The term “gender-based analysis” is something of a misnomer because officials must in fact consider how policies might affect all equality-seeking groups. The article considers what role GBA+ and analogous processes play in a constitutional state.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it