MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124822011

‘Humanizing’ Disability Law: Citizen Participation in the Development of Accessibility Regulations in Canada

2016· article· en· W3124822011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laverne Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical sciencePublic administrationBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario is attempting a new politico-legal experiment to combat disability discrimination. Through consultation processes leading to binding regulations, it is enacting mandatory standards of accessibility under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA). The AODA creates an antidiscrimination regulatory process designed to offer participatory rights to persons with disabilities and other interested stakeholders in the development of accessibility standards. The standards address social areas such as customer service, employment, and information and communication, and aim to break down a host of barriers including architectural and attitudinal ones. Collaborative standard development is a new and proactive approach to addressing disability barriers in society.\nConsultation with citizens to create accessibility standards is a trend that is now being picked up by other provincial governments across Canada and which is currently garnering interest in other countries. But, how well does it work? Using the theoretical framework created by Cass Sunstein in his most recent work, Valuing Life: Humanizing the Regulatory State, this paper argues that the Canadian regulatory legislation and consultative processes succeed, to varying degrees, in: i) capturing qualitatively diverse goods and promoting sensible trade-offs among them, ii) taking account of values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, and iii) attempting to benefit from the dispersed information of a wide variety of human beings. At the same time, however, unlike Sunstein this paper argues for an approach to humanizing the regulatory process that does not necessarily depend on monetary valuation. Instead, in order to foster disciplinary analysis instead of intuition, further dialogue on points that need clarification is more appropriate and respectful in the context of regulating for the equality rights of persons with disabilities. This evaluation of Canadian regulation is offered in an attempt to fill a gap in the literature relating to how consultation processes of accessibility standards might be evaluated for their effectiveness.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207