MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922520760

A TRIUMPH OF SUBSTANCE OVER FORM IN HOW DISCRIMINATION LAW TREATS OBESITY

2003· article· en· W2922520760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harriet Nowell-Smithandhugh O'reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudenceMedical model of disabilityLawHuman rightsSupreme courtMental illnessEmployment discriminationAddictionRace (biology)Political scienceDisability discriminationObesityCriminologyPsychologyPsychiatrySociologyMedicineMental healthGender studies
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent developments in human rights law at the Supreme Court of Canada suggest a new approach to the analysis of discrimination based on disability. Subjective perceptions of disability that lead to unlawful social responses to a physical or mental condition are now seen to disable an individual in the same way that an injury or illness may, regardless of the cause or the nature of the disability. Discrimination on the basis of disability is now being treated in the same way as discrimination on the basis of other grounds, such as race, religion or sex. The new approach to disability discrimination dramatically changes the structure of the legal analysis and with it, the nature of the onus on complainants . It also allows the recognition of conditions such as alcoholism and drug addiction as disabilities under human rights law. In this paper we apply the new jurisprudence to obesity and conclude that obesity can he a disability under human rights law. We test this conclusion by examining whether excluding obesity drugs from employee benefit plans could give rise to successful human rights complaints .

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207