Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, the legal definition of the family was based on heterosexual marriage and links to biological children. Prompted by changing social values and the Charter of Rights, Canadian legislatures and courts have dramatically extended the range of relationships having familial rights and obligations. Canada recognizes the legal status of psychological parents, support rights for adult children and filial support obligations. At present, the greatest controversies concern the inclusion of non‐traditional spousal relationships within the concept of the family, as unmarried cohabitants and same‐sex partners in long‐term relationships have gained many of the rights and obligations of marriage. The Law Commission of Canada recommends legal recognition of a broader range of non‐conjugal ‘close personal adult relationships’. Arguments are also being made for legal recognition of polygamous marriage. While there are legal contexts for which an extension of familial rights to non‐conjugal close personal relationships is appropriate, for purposes of ‘family law’, conjugality should remain a central concept. Adults living in relationships that do not involve the expectations and interdependencies of conjugal (or ‘spousal’) relationships should not have obligations that continue after they have ceased to reside together. Relationships where the adults actually have responsibility for the care of children should generally be protected, but there are strong arguments for not giving legal sanction to polygamous 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".