Reclaiming the Spirit of Jordan's Principle: Lessons from a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Ruling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jordan’s Principle is a child-first principle designed to ensure First Nation children do not experience delays, denials, or disruptions of services ordinarily available to other children in Canada. It was envisioned as a human rights principle tailored to address the unique risks of inequitable treatment arising from the complex structure of public services for First Nations. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) found the federal government’s failure to implement Jordan’s Principle constitutes discrimination on the basis of race and/or national or ethnic origin, and ordered the federal government to cease this discrimination. In response, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, one of the complainants in the case and a primary champion of Jordan’s Principle, called on the federal government to implement the principle immediately in keeping with the conclusions laid out in a 2015 report by the Jordan’s Principle Working Group (JPWG, 2015). This article provides an overview of the research presented and conclusions drawn in the report, integrating analysis of the initial CHRT rulings on Jordan’s Principle and of access to information documents received in the year following release of the report. Focusing on the rulings that the CHRT issued between January and September of 2016, we highlight requirements that the CHRT ruled the federal government must fulfill, as well as additional considerations that should be taken into account in implementing Jordan’s Principle.ResumeLe principe de Jordan est un principe de l’enfant d’abord qui vise a assurer que tous les enfants des Premieres Nations recoivent, sans delai, refus ou perturbation, les services qui seraient habituellement a la disposition des autres enfants au Canada. Il s’agissait d’un principe des droits de la personne concu pour remedier aux risques uniques d’un traitement inequitable decoulant de la structure complexe des services publics pour les Premieres Nations. Le Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne (TCDP) a recemment conclu que la non-application du principe de Jordan par le gouvernement federal constituait une discrimination fondee sur la race et/ou l’origine nationale ou ethnique et a ordonne au gouvernement federal de mettre fin a cette discrimination. En reponse, la Societe de soutien a l’enfance et a la famille des Premieres Nations du Canada, l’un des plaignants dans l’affaire et l’un des principaux defenseurs du principe de Jordan, a fait appel au gouvernement federal afin de mettre en œuvre ce principe immediatement, conformement aux conclusions du rapport de 2015 du groupe de travail sur le principe de Jordan. Cet article donne un apercu des recherches presentees et des conclusions du rapport, en integrant l’analyse des decisions du TCDP sur le principe de Jordan et les documents d’acces recemment recus. En nous concentrant sur les decisions rendues par le TCDP entre janvier et septembre 2016, nous soulignons les exigences que le TCDP a imposees au gouvernement federal, ainsi que des considerations supplementaires a prendre en compte lors de la mise en œuvre du principe de Jordan.Mots cles: Premieres Nations; autochtones; droits de l’enfant; principe de Jordan; egalite reelle; fonction publique; Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne; TCDP
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 | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| 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".