MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Models for Enforcing Age Discrimination Law

2022· book-chapter· en· W4293832648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alysia Blackham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressEnforcementStatutory lawFraming (construction)Law and economicsPolitical scienceDignityLawSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter provides a theoretical framing and critique of the individual enforcement model adopted by domestic models of age discrimination law. It introduces models of naming, blaming, and claiming and the pyramid of disputes to explore the stages of individual enforcement. Drawing on interdisciplinary literature and empirical legal research, the chapter illustrates how reliance on individual enforcement is fundamentally flawed for addressing age discrimination at work. Building on doctrinal analysis of the law in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, the chapter argues that national models of age discrimination law primarily rely on individual enforcement for the prevention and redress of age discrimination at work. While there is provision—at least in theory—for alternative forms of enforcement, via statutory agencies, collective action, and positive duties, the weight of enforcement has fallen on individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiscrimination and Equality LawFrench-language works237,207