MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410232913 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2024-014

Human Rights Institutions: Systemic Underfunding and Policy Reform in Alberta

2025· article· en· W4410232913 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dominique Clement, Parveen Parmar, Angelica Quesada, Renée Vaugeois

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPolitical sciencePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's system of federal, provincial, and territorial anti-discrimination statutes enforced by commissions and tribunals faces a severe funding crisis. This study provides original data on funding and case management trends for each human rights institution in the country. It also documents efforts in Alberta—the jurisdiction in which funding cuts were the most severe—to address these challenges through policy reforms that might potentially serve as a model for other jurisdictions.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207