Analyse transaffirmative des conclusions du jugement 500- 17-082257-141 concernant des dispositions du Code civil du Québec relatives à la désignation du sexe au registre de l’état civil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of a decision rendered in January 2021 by the Honourable Justice Gregory Moore of the Superior Court. This ruling brings various changes to the provisions of the Civil Code of Québec on the designation of sex in the register of civil status. In this case, the Centre for Gender Oppression of Concordia University and four individuals initiated an action against the Government of Quebec. The purpose of this action was to defend the rights of trans and non-binary people by requesting changes to the conditions for changing sex and name on birth certificates. This article outlines the historical context in which the demands were presented, as well as a brief presentation of those that were granted, denied or challenged. Based on the values of trans- affirmative approaches, an analysis of the strengths and limitations of this judgment is made by three candidates for the Master’s degree in social work at Laval University. Finally, alternatives inspired by certain national or international laws are presented in response to the applications that were refused or contested.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".