Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issues around adoption can be both emotion arousing and contentious. This is evidenced by the public reaction to a recent British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) decision assessing the issue of birth fathers and adoption notice. In her ruling, Smith J. overruled the decision made by Master Caldwell, in which he found that the adoption of an aboriginal child could not proceed until the mother divulged the identity of the birth father so that he could be provided with notice of the adoption proceedings. Her decision sparked debate over the merits of the current adoption legislation and the disservice it does to father’s rights. In response to her decision, the Vancouver Sun published an editorial arguing that the current legislation prevents birth fathers who are unaware they have children from ever knowing those children unless the mother decides to name them, and that this is not in the best interests of the child.1 Yet the editorial acknowledges that Smith J. interpreted the Act correctly, and therefore deemed the problem to lie with the Act itself, which needs to be remedied if the best interests of the child are to be protected. However, upon examining the Act, it is found that provisions are in place to protect unacknowledged birth fathers. As such, the B.C. Adoption Act (“the Act”), in its current form, sufficiently balances the interests of the father, the mother and particularly the child in adoption proceedings and should not be amended to accommodate the interests of birth fathers who are unaware they have fathered a child.
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 | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".