An International Call for Action and Canada's Long and Winding Road to Inclusion: The Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both China and Canada are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By examining the right to education guaranteed in the Convention and domestic Canadian law, the article examines Canada’s implementation of that right. To be meaningful, a right to education must be inclusive. Inclusion is achieved on two levels: individual accommodation and systemic changes that challenge established procedures that may result in discrimination. Systemic changes are often seen as more difficult or expensive, and Canadian courts have been reluctant to impose them. However, inclusive education requires a dual focus to combat discrimination on an individual and systemic level, and to uphold international commitments that both China and Canada have made.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.073 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".