Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in the Constitution at the height of what has come to be known as an era of identity politics. The influence of identity politics on Canadian jurisprudence is evident both in some of the specific rights entrenched in the Charter and in the manner these rights have been interpreted. This paper examines two approaches to Charter interpretation that use the resources of identity politics. On the identity approach, claims individuals and groups make about their identities in the course of advancing rights claims are treated as immutable, non-negotiable facts, rather than as contingent attributes grounded in their choices. The identity approach has been fruitfully used to trace discrimination and historical injustice against groups. On the reasonable accommodation approach, courts determine whether specific practices of ethnic and cultural minorities can be accommodated in particular contexts, such as schools or the workplace, without imposing undue hardship on the providers of education or employment. Reasonable accommodation can effectively call into question seemingly neutral rules and standards and expose their biases against minority groups. Although both of these approaches have merits, they also carry risks for minorities. To address these risks, institutions should adopt policies that both encourage “institutional humility” and create viable democratic spaces for minorities to participate in the processes in which the representation and assessment of their identities are at issue.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".