Beyond formal equality: tackling disadvantage and respecting human dignity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of anti-discrimination law reveals that we cannot understand the objectives of this branch of law in reference to a purely formal conception of equality where people must be treated equally regardless of their differences. The concept of substantial equality better reflects contemporary demands for equality and the consequent development of the precepts and strategies that respond to these demands. Equality, when understood in a substantial way means valuing difference and combating discrimination as it manifests itself in the facts.<br/>When anti-discrimination law takes substantial equality as its main objective, it must aim to protect human dignity and combat disadvantage. These two conditions can be considered the key tools and purposes of anti-discrimination law.<br/>While the meaning of human dignity is complex and unfinished, it is also true that there are clear patterns of its interpretation by two of the most advanced jurisdictions on the subject of anti-discrimination law, namely Canada and South Africa. Human dignity has been interpreted in such a way that includes individual’s self-esteem. It has to do with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. Human dignity is protected through laws that are attentive to needs, capabilities and merits of people in their individuality, taking into account the context that surrounds the differences between people and is enriched when laws give full recognition and place to individuals and groups within society. Human dignity is harmed when individuals and groups are marginalized, ignored or devalued.<br/>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".