MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394914589 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v39.8579

Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2024· article· en· W4394914589 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mark Lepofsky

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterBattlePolitical scienceLawHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the personal memoir of blind lawyer and volunteer disability rights advocate David Lepofsky. It describes his involvement in and perspectives on the successful fight from 1980 to 1982 to get Canada’s proposed Charter of Rights amended to guarantee equal rights for people with disabilities. It includes a foreword by the Hon. Rosalie Abella, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. This memoir recounts the little-known saga of the disability amendment to the Charter. Few know that equality for people with disabilities was the only constitutional right added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the widely publicized eighteen-month battle over the patriation of Canada’s Constitution, from October 1980 to April 1982. It is aimed at anyone interested in disability rights, human rights, Canadian political or legal history, social justice advocacy, and Canadian constitutional law. It provides a mix of legal and legislative history, personal autobiography, grassroots advocacy strategy and reflective commentary on lessons learned. It compares social justice advocacy techniques in 1980 to those practiced in the disability rights arena four decades later.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207