Producing Paternity: The Role of Legal Fatherhood in Maintaining the Traditional Family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article unpacks the modern legal construction of paternity and the ideological assumptions that underpin the legal designation. Through a review of the often disparate areas of family law in which legal paternity and/or the rights associated with “being a father” have emerged in recent years, the article considers the multiple ways in which paternity and fatherhood are utilized in family law discourse to grant men rights, and occasionally responsibilities, with regard to children. It is argued that while law has historically relied on a biological (though not always accurate) construction of fatherhood, both courts and legislatures have become open to multiple constructions of fatherhood in more recent years, some based on biology, some on the man’s relationship to the child’s mother (which is linked to presumptions about biological paternity), and others grounded solely on a social relationship with the child. Given what appears to be a shift in the law’s approach to legal fatherhood, or at least a new openness to multiple constructions, it is important to revisit the question of how legal paternity is assigned in modern Canadian family law.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".