MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302435432 · doi:10.51952/9781447325512.ch016

Canada

2016· book-chapter· en· W4302435432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's global reputation as a defender of human rights was tarnished by the failure of the Stephen Harper government, in power until October, to take essential steps to remedy serious human rights problems. Particular areas of concern include the rights of indigenous peoples, the legal status of sex work, restrictive counterterrorism measures, the impact of Canada's extractive and garment industries abroad, and the rights of asylum seekers and migrants. Growing public concern over missing and murdered indigenous women and girls has led to numerous calls from provincial leaders, opposition political parties, civil society, and in 2015, two Unit The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women concluded that Canada had committed a “grave violation” of the rights of indigenous women by failing to promptly and thoroughly investigate the high levels of violence they suffer. The committee also called attention to their mistreatment by the police, an issue that Human Rights Watch documented in its 2013 report Those Who Take Us Away. The UN Human Rights Committee expressed similar concern over the violence facing indigenous women and girls, as well as Canada's failure to provide adequate and effective responses. Both UN committees recommended that Canada conduct a national inquiry to address the issue, a recommendation the Harper government rejected but which the newly elected Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has pledged to implement.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207