Family Life, Parental Separation, and Child Custody in Canada: a Focus on Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United States and Canada have been experiencing major changes in family formation and dissolution over the past decades. Within this context, the French-Canadian Province of Quebec has consistently been at the forefront—in 2011, for example, 37.8 per cent of Quebec couples were cohabitants and 63 per cent of births were from nonmarried parents. Is this difference strictly due to Quebec's distinct social and cultural characteristics or can the Quebec experience be seen as a predictor of things to come for the rest of Canada and the United States? This article discusses the causes of these new behaviors in Quebec, presents changes in the Canadian legal system to facilitate less adversarial procedures, and reports the results of a Quebec longitudinal study exploring the relationship between child adjustment and custody arrangements. The quality of the psychological and relational environment in which the child lives is shown to be more important than the type of family structure and custody arrangement. Keypoints for the Family Court Community Family structure changes in Quebec and Canada Divorce less adversarial dispute resolution options Contribution of child custody arrangement to postseparation child well-being Moderating factors of child well-being in separated divorced families Emotional well-being, parenting practices, and household income of mothers with joint versus sole custody
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".