MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963863902 · doi:10.7202/042422ar

La notion de famille et son impact en droit social

2005· article· en· W1963863902 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mireille D. Castelli

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationStatuteCohabitationStatutory lawSocial securityLegislaturePopulationSocial Security ActPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper surveys references to the family in social legislation, with more specific regard to social security schemes providing coverage to a broad section of the population. Such references are seen as involving two types of questions. First, do statutory references to the family invoke a definite concept of the family cell ? And second, in what ways do family relationships influence one's position under social security legislation ? Thus the first part of the paper is an attempt to elucidate the concept of the family underlying social security legislation. This is done by considering the legislative treatment of three components of family relationships, which seem to play, either separately or in conjunction, a particularly significant role in statutes of this type : the network of interpersonal relationships that are included in the family, the concept of dependency, and the consequences attributed to cohabitation. The second part of the paper surveys the impact of family relationships on rights and duties under social security legislation. This part opens with a broad description of social legislation generally, followed by a threefold classification of social security schemes according to the type of economic hazard against which compensation is provided: loss of income, lack of income, increase in needs. The impact of family relationships in each group of statutes is then brought under detailed analysis, and a number of anomalies are pointed out. The general picture disclosed by the paper is one of severe confusion, both as to the concept of the family itself and as to the impact of family relationships on social security benefits. While inconsistencies of the latter kind may be explained and justified in a number of cases, it seems desirable that a single concept of the family be adhered to in all social security statutes. This, however, should not preclude variations where warranted by the policy of the Act, general standards of morality, or the particular purpose sought by statutory reference to family 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicSocial Policies and FamilyFrench-language works237,207