MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recognizing same‐sex relationships: The evolution of recent federal and provincial policies

2002· article· en· W2106498539 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miriam Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPolitical scienceJurisdictionConstitutionHumanitiesLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article describes recent federal and provincial policies on relationship recognition for same‐sex couples. It argues that the evolution of policy in this area confirms the prediction that the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution would lead to a homogenizing of policies across jurisdictions in Charter‐related areas. The author provides a brief overview of the development of relationship recognition as a policy issue, an overview of the relevant Charter litigation, and a description of recent policy developments in federal jurisdiction, such as the passage of Bill C‐23 on relationship recognition, as well as developments in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and other provinces. Sommaire: Le présent article décrit les récentes politiques fédérales et provinciales sur la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe. II soutient que l'évolution des politiques dans ce domaine confirme les prédictions que l'enchâssement de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés dans la Constitution entraînerait une, homogénéisation des politiques de tous les territoires/provinces dans les domaines liés à la Charte. L'auteur présente un bref aperçu de l'éolution de la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe en tant que question de politique, une vue d'ensemble du contentieux applicable fondé sur la Charte, et une description de récentes formulations de politiques à l'échelle fédérale, comme l'adoption du projet de loi C‐23 sur la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe, ainsi que des faits nouveaux en Ontario, au Québec, en Colombie‐Britannique et dans d'autres provinces.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207