The legal politics of globalization and workers with disabilities in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workers with disabilities face profound marginalization in both Canada and the United States as determined by a wide variety of measures including labour market participation rates, poverty rates and income levels. However, the advent of deregulated labour markets in a fast-changing world of globalization means both enormous opportunities and perils for workers with disabilities. In this dissertation, I explore the contradictory implications of globalization for workers with disabilities and the important role that legal regulation can play in structuring choices and allocating resources and power. I advocate throughout in favour of the social-political model of disablement as the most persuasive in explicating the systemic problems faced by people with disabilities in Canada and the United States. This approach focuses on the structural barriers and discriminatory attitudes imposed by society on people with disabilities and contrasts sharply with earlier failed paradigms such as the medical and economic models of disablement. These barriers range widely from ignorant attitudes about the capabilities of people with disabilities that malignly encourage discrimination in the workplace to physical impediments such as staircases which make it impossible for many with mobility impairments to access workplaces, educational institutions and public services and the lack of information throughout society and the media in formats accessible to blind people. I maintain that two major implications of the social model for the legal regulation of workers with disabilities are (a) greater worker control over the day to day decisions in the workplace and (b) the provision of disability supports across a disabled person's lifespan that would be decoupled from employment status or income level. I assess some of the major schools associated with the Law and Economics scholarly tradition in light of their salience for the two prongs that I have articulated. These include, inter alia, Behavioural Law and Economics, the Law and Social Norms School, Institutionalist and Neo-Institutionalist Law and Economics, and Critical Race Theory Law and Economics. Finally, I apply the two implications of the social model to evaluate selected key trends of globalization including human capital intensive workplaces, flexible working arrangements, the emergence of new technologies and telework.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".