From Rights to Justice: Perspectives on Access to Disability Justice in BritishColumbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities as illustration, this paper aims to broaden perspectives about the availability of disability rights and disability justice. The first section considers the access to justice concerns that flow from the initial decision to deny standing to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. Second, it addresses the barriers to accessing justice for persons with disabilities that grounded the case and the disproportionate impact of the impugned mental health legislation on equity-denied communities. The final section evaluates the persistence of procedural and substantive barriers to accessing disability justice. While we celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision, public interest standing alone is insuffıcient to address the deeply rooted barriers to disability justice. Instead, a comprehensive and collective approach is necessary to confront systemic barriers to justice, acknowledging intersecting forms of sanism.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".