MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391796802 · doi:10.7202/1100420ar

INSTITUTIONALIZED DISADVANTAGE IN EDUCATION AND THE RIGHT TO EQUAL BENEFIT OF THE LAW: THE NEXT STEP AFTER NON-DISCRIMINATION

2023· article· en· W4391796802 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Judith K. Bernhard

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTaxation and Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageLawRight to educationPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyLaw and economicsHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INSTITUTIONALIZED DISADVANTAGE IN EDUCATION AND THE RIGHT TO EQUAL BENEFIT OF THE LAW: THE NEXT STEP AFTER NON-DISCRIMINATION. Un article de la revue Revue québécoise de droit international / Quebec Journal of International Law / Revista quebequense de derecho internacional (Volume 12, numéro 1, 1999, p. I-273) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.028
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicTaxation and Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207