SHOULD THE CHRA MIRROR THE CHARTER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report concludes that the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) should not contain an open-ended clause, one that would prohibit discrimination on grounds other than those specifically listed in the Act. One variant of an open-ended clause, an “unreasonable cause” provision, would reintroduce the discredited “distinction ” approach to equality issues, with its attendant negative consequences for women’s equality. Another version would amend the CHRA to mirror s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thus likely incorporating into the CHRA the same analogous grounds that courts include in s. 15. It would not effectively address specific inequalities experienced by women, such as those resulting from poverty. Furthermore, it could reinforce several negative features of the current Canadian human rights system, such as valorizing the “prohibited ground ” approach to redressing women’s inequalities. The report concludes that an open-ended list would cause more problems than it solves. On balance, having an open-ended list will not produce sufficient gains for women’s equality to justify the efforts in lobbying for it and litigating its
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".