Implementing Equal Access to Legal Capacity in Canada: Experience, Evidence, and Legal Imperative – Final Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Canadians with disabilities have long been discriminated against in the enjoyment and exercise of their legal capacity, especially people with developmental, cognitive, or psychosocial disabilities. The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) seeks to correct this pervasive discrimination. It recognizes the right to equality in the exercise of legal capacity without discrimination based on disability. This study was motivated by two primary issues: 1) longstanding concerns in the disability rights community about this discrimination; and 2) the findings and recommendations made by the United Nations “Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” (UN Committee) which is the independent body of experts monitoring implementation of the Convention. In its April 2017 concluding observations to Canada’s first report on its progress in implementing the CRPD, the Committee found that Canada should take “leadership in collaborating with provinces and territories to create a consistent framework for recognizing legal capacity and to enable access to the support needed to exercise legal capacity.” There is an immense array of law, policy, and program provisions regulating legal capacity in Canada. The research team examined a broad range of these provisions. Given the available time frame and resources for the study, the team chose a representative selection of provisions to analyze in depth. The goal was to uncover themes and commonalities upon which to base an analytic approach to reform.
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 | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".