Reasonable accommodation in Canada and indirect discrimination in Europe as a guarantee of the principle of equality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a comparative study of the concepts of reasonable accommodation developed by the Canadian Supreme Court and of indirect discrimination employed by the European Court of Human Rights. Both concepts are applied in multicultural contexts to guarantee the principle of equality. The analysis of the two courts’ jurisprudence, based on paradigmatic cases, allows an exploration of the reasonableness test. This test places limits on the legal force of the instruments the two courts apply through, on the one hand, the criterion of excessive burden and the overriding interest of the state and, on the other hand, proportionality and states’ margin of appreciation. The paper highlights the urgent need to articulate policies to address diversity that are based on a vision of diversity as affirmatively beneficial, rather than as a problem to be managed. At the same time, it emphasises concepts that can bring about effective equality in the exercise and enjoyment of rights, strengthening the democratic pluralism necessary for contemporary societies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".