The Influence of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Canadian Jurisprudence in the First Decade Since its Ratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD]in 2010 was met with hope and excitement that it would lead to much-needed improvements in equality, inclusion and accessibility for persons with disabilities in Canada. This paper explores the impact the CRPD has had on Canadian jurisprudence in the decade since Canada ratified the treaty. Our analysis of the jurisprudence indicates that Canadian courts and tribunals have employed a variety of approaches to the CRPD, for which we provide illustrative examples. Overall, the CRPD has impacted the reasoning or outcome in a small number of cases, but has not exerted great influence in Canadian jurisprudence to date. Despite this limited impact, a number of emerging factors suggest that the CRPD may well become more influential in Canadian jurisprudence in the future.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".