Affirmative Action in Higher Education: What Canada Can Take from the American Experience?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group preferences in the form of affirmative action are presumptively constitutional under the Canadian Charter, but not under the United States Constitution. Yet, despite Canada’s constitutional pre-commitment to affirmative action, many Canadian political leaders continue to contest the propriety of affirmative action. The debate in Canada could intensify similar to way in which it has unfolded in the United States, and could, perhaps, influence the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of the Charter. Focusing on higher education, which has become the battleground for affirmative action in the United States, the author crystallizes some of the most important questions with which America courts have had to grapple in addressing the affirmative-action matter. Although the author suggests that the Supreme Court of Canada may wish to borrow from the American experience, just as lower Canadian courts have in the past, he also cautions that there are some aspects of the affirmative action question (such as defining exactly what diversity means) for which the United States Supreme Court has little to offer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it