All Talk with Very Little Action: Bill 26, the Accessibility for Manitobans Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ccessibility in Manitoba is a significant issue.In a 2012 survey by Statistics Canada, 1 15.6 percent of Manitobans over the age of 15 reported that they had a disability that limited their daily activities.This number exceeds the national average, and will likely increase as Manitoba's population ages.By introducing accessibility legislation, the province of Manitoba took a crucial step in attempting to improve quality of life for this segment of the population.Bill 26 was introduced in response to pressure from disability rights groups in Manitoba.Prior to this accessibility legislation, these rights were narrowly contested via specific complaints to either the Manitoba or Canadian Human Rights Commissions, depending on which level of government had jurisdiction over the matter at issue. 2 These administrative bodies could then order the responding parties to improve their own accessibility standards.In 2011, over 51 percent of complaints filed with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission were based on disability. 3Many hope that legislation like Bill 26, which creates 1 Canada, Statistics Canada, "A profile of persons with disabilities among Canadians aged 15 years or older" (2012), online: .2 In many cases, legislative jurisdiction over business lies with the province, under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5. Certain areas (such as aeronautics, and banking) fall into federal jurisdiction.The subject matter for constitutional purposes will determine which statutory regime applies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".