An Analysis of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
sur les personnes handicapies de l'Ontario (<< LPHO >>) a 6t6 d6pos6e en troisi~me lecture et a t6 adopt6e par l'Assembl~e l6gislative de l'Ontario.Le lendemain, elle a requ la sanction royale.La LPHO qui a 6t6 adoptge n'est pas, toutefois, le solide texte lMgislatif que les personnes handicapees avaient tant recherch6 et esp6r6 depuis des ann6es.II s' agit plut6t d'une loi qui pourrait avoir une portge tr~s limitde et qui est particuli~rement connue pour son utilisation inhabituelle d'un langage ayant un mobile politique.La LPHO offre toutefois certains moyens qui pourraient 8tre utilisgs pour commencer A supprimer les nombreux obstacles auxquels font face les personnes handicapges en Ontario.Cet article examine 1'61aboration de la LPHO et analyse ses dispositions cl6s.On tente ensuite de pr~voir une utilisation maximale de la loi malgr6 ses limites.A cette fin, on entreprend un examen des moyens potentiels appliques que la LPHO soit interprgt~e et mise en ceuvre conformgment aux principes 6noncgs dans la 16gislation portant sur les droits de la personne et dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertis. I.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".