Derechos e integración: el acomodo razonable como instrumento para la igualdad material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El interés de este texto radica en explorar el nacimiento, la evolución y las características de un concepto que se desprende directamente del principio de igualdad y de no discriminación. De este modo, los jueces en un sistema de common law, y sin base legal explícita, han creado un mecanismo reparador de las lesiones a derechos fundamentales provocadas por un tratamiento homogéneo de las diferencias individuales. Es así como el acomodo razonable se convierte en garantía última del principio de igualdad. De origen estadounidense, ha sido la jurisprudencia canadiense la que ha contribuido principalmente al desarrollo de esta figura, de modo que una cultura de acomodos está ya plenamente arraigada en la sociedad canadiense, y funciona tanto a nivel institucional como a nivel privado. ABSTRACT The interest of this paper lies in exploring the birth, evolution and characteristics of a concept directly derived from the principle of equality and non-discrimination. That is how judges, in a common law system and without an explicit legal basis, have created a mechanism to restore fundamental rights damages caused by an homogeneous treatment of individual differences. Therefore, reasonable accommodation becomes the last guarantee of the principle of equality. Despite being originally American, Canadian jurisprudence has contributed the most to the development of this legal instrument. Therefore an accommodation culture is deeply rooted in Canadian society, and it works both in the institutional and in the private sphere.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".