Cracking the Conjugal Myths: What Does it Mean for the Attribution Rules?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Law Commission of Canada deserves praise for a report that is groundbreaking in both its substantive vision and its methodological approach to tax policy analysis. The report’s core argument is that the legal treatment of close adult relationships should depend less on whether they are conjugal in nature and more on their functional relevance to the policy objectives of particular legal regimes. Applying this principle to the Income Tax Act, the report criticizes the tendency in tax law to assume that conjugal partners share all their income, expenses, and property while ignoring or discounting the degree of economic interdependence that exists in many other types of close relationships between adults. The report’s recommendations would de-emphasize conjugality to make the income tax more individually focused overall and, where it does take relationships into account, more pluralistic with regard to the form of those relationships.
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 | 0.041 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".