Between Women and Men, and Providing a Framework for Accommodation Requests.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legislation, introduced by Bernard Drainville, at the time the minister for demo-cratic institutions and active citizenship, sought to affirm the religious neutrality of the state, in particular by prohibiting public sector employees—including those work-ing in hospitals, schools, daycares, and universities—from wearing “signes ostentatoires” (“conspicuous religious symbols”). The legislation also proposed to amend the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in order to enshrine the “equality of men and women ” as the highest human right to which other rights (such as freedom of religious expression) would be subordinated. From the initial indications from the government concerning this legislative initiative in May of 2013, through a noisy publicity campaign launched in September, to televised public hearings over the winter, and culminating in the stunning electoral defeat of the governing Parti Québécois on April 7, 2014, the Charter of Québec Values (as it was popularly named) created tremendous division within Québec society, lining up politicians, journalists, media celebrities, unions, and other public figures and institutions onto bitterly opposing sides. Supporters of the charter characterized the initiative as a consummation of the Quiet Revolution of the
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.111 | 0.037 |
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".