Pay Equity and Community Based Organizations in Saskatchewan: Paradoxes and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite clear evidence of the wage gap and the prevalence of systemic wage discrimination, Saskatchewan does not have provincial pay equity legislation. The analysis put forward in this paper will focus on the inequities experienced by community based organizations in Saskatchewan. This sector provides a salient example of the urgent need for provincial legislation to address pay inequity in Saskatchewan particularly in light of contemporary changes to the provision of social services associated with rise of the “New Economy”. The experiences of community based organizations demonstrate that the current regime for addressing pay inequity inSaskatchewan is inadequate. The institutional and legal framework available is incapable of achieving pay equity in anything more than a token, piecemeal, ad hoc fashion. Pay equity is a fundamental human right and pro-active pay equity legislation is essential to its achievement.6 As such, the Saskatchewan government must take its obligations to promote substantive equality seriously and implement stand-alone, proactive pay equity legislation, covering all workers in every economic sector. As a latecomer to the Canadian pay equity statutory scene, Saskatchewan could benefit from the lessons learned in other jurisdictions in the development of its own provincial pay equity legislation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".