“What is to be Done for Failed Marriages?” The Supreme Court and the Recovery of Jurisdiction over Marital Causes in Newfoundland in 1948
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE ABSENCE OF EITHER A COMMON LAW or statutory provision for the separation or divorce of couples who wished to end their marriages is a notable feature of Newfoundland’s legal history. For a century and a half as British colony and dominion (1825-1949), and for 20 years as a Canadian province prior to the first federal Divorce Act of 1968, 1 couples resident in Newfoundland could not legally divorce locally. If they did so informally, by simply ending the union, they denied themselves legal protections, safeguards and obligations which legal precedent or statute might have guaranteed. In addition, they left themselves open to charges of desertion, failure to provide support for a spouse, children or parent, and suits for the restitution of conjugal rights and the custody of children. During World War Two, lawyers and social workers employed by the Department of Health and Welfare drew up private contracts between spouses who wished to live apart. 2 But the government did not acknowledge that such separations were legal, and they were ultimately enforceable only by an aggrieved party bringing a civil action for breach of contract. Whether the courts would have recognized the validity of such separation agreements — there would have been no question of a legal divorce — before 1948 is an open question, as there are no reported cases in which private parties resorted to the courts on the basis of a private contract. 3 Had they done so, the courts would have had to rule on several contentious issues. Did the parties have legal standing? What were their respective rights? Were those of dependent children or parents affected? Had the contracts been truly consensual? Had the parties been
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".