MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2155917146

Questions and Answers About Pension Division on Marriage Breakdown in British Columbia

2001· article· en· W2155917146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
British Columbia

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionStatuteLawDomestic relationsPolitical scienceFamily law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1995 British Columbia enacted the Family Relations Act, which provides for the assistance of plans in dividing pensions between spouses on marriage breakdown. In March 1996 a first edition of this publication was published to canvas the operation of the Family Relations Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, as these statutes apply when a marriage breaks down and one of the assets to be divided is a pension. Since publication of the first edition, a number of developments necessitated the publication of this second edition. This report is in the form of questions and answers. The material included is based upon questions that arose after Part 6 of the Family Relations Act was introduced in 1995.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→