Bibliographic record
Abstract
ill 34-The Charter Compliance Act, 1 was introduced into the Manitoba Legislature on 6 June 2002.It passed first, second, and third readings without debate but was met with much media attention along the way and finally met official, as well as public, opposition at the Standing Committee on Law Amendments hearing on 24 July 2002.Nonetheless, Bill 34 was given Royal Assent without amendment on 1 August 2002, with many of its sections declared to come into force on 1 January 2003.This bill amends 56 pieces of Manitoba legislation (see Appendix A) concerning the rights and responsibilities of common-law couples and brings these acts into compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.2 In recognizing same-sex relationships, the law has been steadily broadened in recent years due to constitutional challenges to the existing legislation.Many of these challenges have ultimately been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has consistently ruled against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.Rather than continuing the time consuming and costly practice of having individual pieces of legislation declared to be of no force or effect by the courts, a recent SCC decision, M. v. H., 3 ordered a proactive solution: to amend the offending legislation to comply with the new grounds of discrimination.Because of this, Manitoba's legislation had to be changed to ensure that it did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or relationship status.Many of the amendments in Bill 34 add the definition of 'common-law partner' in s. 1 (the definition section) of existing acts, and add 'or common-law partner' directly after every usage of the word 'spouse.'According to a presentation made to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, these amendments make 1 S.M. 2002, c. 24.
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.015 |
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".