The Academic Year in Review: Selected Family Law Publications 2010-11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this second installment of the Family Law Institute’s “Academic Year in Review,” we are spotlighting a number of articles, reports, and books generally published in the preceding two years and which focus on family and children’s issues. Unlike many reviews, where the authors mention articles and books they have liked (or disliked!), we selected these titles with the family law practitioner in mind to help you make sense of recent developments in the field of family law and policy. We hope to introduce you to academic publications that may assist you in developing arguments on behalf of your clients, or to provide you with insightful and scholarly critiques of legislation and case law. We also provide a bibliography of additional publications released in 2010-2011 which are not summarized but may nevertheless be of interest to members of the family bar. While we are featuring publications from academic and professional journals that specialize in family law and policy issues in Canada, we have also selected pieces from journals that focus specifically on foreign and international 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 | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
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".