Bibliographic record
Abstract
We will be dealing with the major issues and the current realities of family law arbitrations in Ontario. Many conflicting reports are in circulation; it is important to have before us a sequential account. Family law in Canada is a shared jurisdiction between our federal government and our provincial governments. The division of powers is set out in the British North America Act 1867 and was confirmed in our Constitution Act 1982. Section 91 of the 1982 Act sets out the areas subject exclusively to the Canadian Parliament: these include criminal law, marriage and divorce. Section 92 sets out the areas that fall exclusively within the authority of the provincial legislatures: these include, within each province, the solemnisation of marriage, property rights and civil rights. The federal Divorce Act applies not only to married people who want a divorce, but also to the custody, access, child and spousal support claims that they make as part of that divorce. Ontario law, under the Family Law Act 1990 and the Children’s Law Reform Act 1990, applies to all other family law matters, including separation (as distinct from divorce) of married or unmarried couples and support and custody where no divorce is sought, and at both separation and divorce the division and possession of property, restraining orders and related issues of child protection and enforcement orders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".