MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6982935022

La grossophobie, ce « préjugé acceptable » : de l’ajout du poids comme motif énuméré de discrimination à l’article 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne

2024· other· fr· W6982935022 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge UdeS (Institutional Deposit of the University of Sherbrooke) · 2024
Typeother
Languagefr
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilHydro-QuébecArts and Humanities Research CouncilMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsEthnic discriminationGender identitySocial lifeSex discrimination
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fatphobia and weight discrimination are extremely prevalent in Quebec. These phenomena are insidious, tolerated, even accepted, and particularly demean the dignity of fat people. In Quebec, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (the Quebec Charter), more specifically section 10, does not explicitly recognize weight discrimination. Victims of weight discrimination must rely on a disability discrimination claim to obtain redress. However, this remedy is ill suited to many cases of weight discrimination and fails to address the social phenomenon of weight stigma . The recognition of a new ground of discrimination under section 10 of the Charter, namely "weight", with the aim of prohibiting discrimination based on weight, fighting fat phobia and protecting fat people, is therefore essential. The legal justification for this legislative amendment is twofold: first, the addition of weight as a ground for discrimination is consistent with the essence and objectives of the equality right ; its absence, on the contrary, inhibits them. Second, t he omission of weight from the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 10 of the Quebec Charter also contravenes section 15 of the Canadian Charter, making it discriminatory and unconstit utional. The analysis as a whole points to the obvious imperative of adding "weight" as a prohibited ground of discrimination in section 10 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.023
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge UdeS (Institutional Deposit of the University of Sherbrooke)→French-language works237,207→