Children’s best interests and intimate partner violence in the Canadian family law and child protection systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article summarizes the findings of a project investigating women’s experiences with the Canadian child protection (CPS) and family law (FLS) systems. We examine both service systems together here because although both privilege children’s best interests as their primary consideration and define the concept similarly, the two systems diverge in their expectations of women relative to child custody. While FLS requires women to accept custody arrangements that provide close and continued contact between themselves and their former abusive partners, CPS expects women to leave these same abusive partners or risk removal of their children. The results of thirty-five qualitative interviews with women demonstrate their struggles, firstly, in having their experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) recognized by professionals in the FLS, and, secondly, in becoming caught between the opposing expectations of CPS and FLS while not receiving help from either. Recommendations for change to improve these services are included in this article.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it