Problematizing the Legal Recognition of Sign Languages in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les auteures analysent certaines questions liées à la reconnaissance du langues des signes, à la lumière de la récente adoption par le gouvernement fédéral d’une Loi canadienne sur l’accessibilité et de l’activisme de la communauté sourde à cet égard. Les auteures mettent en évidence les lacunes des connaissances relatives à l’utilisation du langue des signes, notamment les pratiques de communication des sourds des populations indigènes, et relatent l’histoire de la lutte pour les droits des utilisateurs du langue des signes au Canada. Elles analysent les mesures existantes de protection des droits d’accès au langue des signes que contient la législation constitutionnelle canadienne et se demandent comment ces mesures peuvent exclure la nécessité de reconnaître le langue des signes dans le cadre de la législation relative aux handicaps. Les auteures proposent ensuite une loi concernant le langue des signes qui serait le pendant de la future Loi sur les langues autochtones et qui pourrait mieux encadrer les droits relatifs au langue des signes protégeant les Canadiens sourds.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".