Different - yet equal: the historical development of disability discrimination legislation in the US, the UK, Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the historical development of anti-discrimination policy in four jurisdictions, with an emphasis on persons with disabilities. It details the development of disability discrimination legislation in the US and Australia, and of equality legislation in the UK and Canada. It is argued that more equitable policies have co-evolved with historical changes in the social construction of marginalised individuals. More specifically, the study employs an historical institutionalist framework to investigate the array of factors driving the evolution of the human rights institutions in each country. The case studies throw up a wealth of factors, but two major factors stand out, one structural, the other agential. The major structural factor is federalism. In the three federal nation-states the national jurisdiction shares power and competencies with subnational jurisdictions, with implications for human rights legislation at the federal level. This contrasts with the UK, a unitary state, but with its sovereignty now constrained by the European Union. The major agential factor is the nature, institutional location and timing of activism promoting human rights. The study highlights several prominent political and academic actors, who initiate new policy proposals in response to (and utilising) critical junctures in the history of human rights institutions in each country. The thesis concludes by indicating that a fertile area of future research lies in the exploration of the lineage, transmission and development of the ideas centred on human rights and justice argued by such entrepreneurs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".