MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W53025571

The Widening Concept of Parent in Canada: Step-Parents, Same-Sex Partners, & Parents by ART

2012· article· en· W53025571 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Bala, Christine Ashbourne

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œAmerican University journal of gender, social policy & the law · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCohabitationSpouseCensusLegislationFamily lawCharterParliamentPolitical scienceLegislatureSociologyDemographyGender studiesLawPopulationPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION-THE EVOLVING CONCEPT OF THE FAMILY IN CANADAThe social and legal concepts of in Canada have changed dramatically over the past half century. While opposite-sex married couples with children remain the most common form, the 2006 Census revealed that these families are no longer the majority.1 The divorce rate has risen dramatically over the past several decades, with more than one in three marriages now ending in divorce.2 Consequently, singleparent families, blended families, and step-families are now common, and there has been a substantial increase in the number of lone-parent families, though most (approximately 80%) remain headed by women.3 Also, the number of unmarried opposite-sex couples has been growing rapidly, rising from about 6% of all Census families in 1981 to 16% in 2006, and Canada now gives extensive legal recognition to non-marital cohabitation.4 Finally, over the past two decades there has been increasing legal and social acceptance of same-sex relationships. As a result of litigation in the late 1990s under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the equality rights provision),5 the federal Parliament and provincial legislatures enacted legislation to recognize same-sex relationships as similar to non-marital opposite-sex relationships, and in 2005, Canada became the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. About one in six of the same-sex couples identified in the 2006 Census were married, with the rest living in non-marital relationships.6Like family and spouse, the concept of has also been transformed. In the latter part of the twentieth century, the legal concept of illegitimacy was abolished and Canada gave legal recognition to psychological parents, beginning with step-parents in traditional oppositesex marriages. More recently, the concept of parenthood has been broadened to reflect the surge in the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) by both homosexual and heterosexual couples to conceive children.7 It is this changing definition of parent in Canada- with a particular focus on some of the issues raised by ARTs-that is the subject of this Article.Our central theme is that, consistent with the relatively expansive concept of spouse, in comparison to many other countries, Canadian legislatures and courts have developed a relatively broad and child-focused approach to the concept of parent, one that recognizes the importance of social and psychological parents and now includes the same-sex partners of lesbian biological mothers. However, Canadian law has not fully kept pace with technological and social change, and there is a need for statutory reform to better address the issues that are raised by the growing use and sophistication of ARTs.8 Many questions related to ARTs have been leftfor judges to resolve, or for lawyers to attempt to provide advice to clients, in the absence of clear legislation or binding precedent. Further, present laws significantly restrict the use of surrogacy agreements and payments to gamete donors; while facially neutral, these laws have a disproportionate impact on same-sex partners, especially lesbians.This Article surveys some of the salient issues and controversies related to the establishment of parent-child relationships in Canada, with a particular focus on questions related to ARTs and same-sex parenting. Given the complexity of these issues as well as space limitations, this Article does not provide a detailed review of all of the relevant Canadian case law and statutes, but rather, identifies central themes and discusses particular jurisprudence and legislation that may serve as useful precedents for other countries.Part I of this Article examines the traditional legal bases for establishing legal parentage, beginning with the historical legal presumptions which privileged biology and marriage when ordering and sanctioning relationships. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,373
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,930

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,314
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œAmerican University journal of gender, social policy & the lawMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207