Les tribunaux d’arbitrage dans l’engrenage de la division sexuelle du travail : l’interaction des motifs de discrimination fondée sur l’état civil et le sexe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, l’autrice met en parallèle l’interprétation du droit à l’égalité par les tribunaux d’arbitrage québécois, spécifiquement en ce qui a trait à la notion d’état civil prévue à l’article 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, avec le concept de division sexuelle du travail tel que développé par la sociologue Danièle Kergoat. À l’aide d’une analyse jurisprudentielle, elle démontre comment cette interprétation demeure androcentrée et reflète la dynamique des rapports sociaux de sexe. Cette situation a pour effet d’exacerber les conséquences de l’exploitation du travail des femmes dans la sphère privée et de les transposer dans la sphère publique, ce qui participe à la segmentation sexuée du travail et renforce les stéréotypes de genre.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".