See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Remedy No Evil: How the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal is Failing to Protect the Most Fundamental Rights of Residential Tenants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, l'auteur laisse entrevoir que le nouveau Tribunal du logement de l'Ontario ne protege pas les int6r&s des locataires d'habitation.Bien que le tribunal soit un organisme cr66 par une loi et qu'il soit i6 par les dispositions de cette loi, l'auteur indique que le Tribunal a limit6 sa portre en adoptant une interpr6tation indfiment 6troite des pouvoirs qui lui sont conf6rs par la loi.L'article se penche sur l'approche adoptre par le Tribunal relativement A la protection des locataires 6vincrs injustement, au report ou refus de l'6viction et aux recours mis A la disposition des locataires pour l'entrave a leur jouissance paisible des lieux.L'auteur termine en indiquant que le Tribunal tel qu'il est constitu6 prrsentement donne A croire que les locateurs poss~dent un plus grand droit de possession immediate des logements locatifs que les locataires.I. * Paul Rapsey, B.A., LL.B., has practised law as both a landlord and a tenant lawyer.He has spent the past eight years working as a research lawyer for Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) and has specialized in residential tenancy law.He has been the Editor of the LAO "Landlord and Tenant Case Summary Index" since 1992.The views expressed in this paper are those of the author in his personal capacity. 1.The perception of bias against tenants is not helped by the Tribunal's location in the Ministry of
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".