THE EXEMPTION APPROACH TOWARD RIGHTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensitive aerospace technology transfer and the manufacture of aeronautic and military components is subject to American law that places American security ahead of equality law. Reconciling the extraterritorial reach of powerful states and companies with domestic law can benefit from the ideas and solutions applied in other similar legal jurisdictions. The legal issue recently addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec v Bombardier Inc (Latif) decision has been consistently managed in Australia using a different approach more than eight years prior to Latif. In many ways Canada and Australia overlap in their respective economic, political, social, historical and legal cultures. However, Australian states traditionally enact much more detailed and nuanced private sector equality legislation, which is in turn subjected to broader administrative review and more adjudicative options than found in Canada. These differences permit Australia to employ the statutory exemption model. For public interest reasons relating to employment, the economy, defence, post-secondary education and research, private sector industries and companies may be granted indefinitely renewable exemptions from equality obligations. This article compares the Canadian legislation in Latif with the Australian State of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 1995, which contains numerous “exemptions” to the equality principle as demonstrated in the Boeing Australia case. The more complicated and time-consuming Canadian approach renders less generalizable decisions than the proactive exemption model employed in Australia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".