Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent Alberta Court of Appeal Case in D.W.H v D.J.R. (D.W.H) marks the latest in a series of Canadian judicial decisions regulating the legal definition of family, and the rights of queer parents and sperm donors. While recent provincial jurisprudence and legislation for the most part expands the legal recognition of queer families, the ability to form some of the most prevalent forms of queer families is now restricted by new federal legislation governing reproductive technologies, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (Act). Queer families use reproductive technologies extensively, and the parents discussed in D.W.H., would now encounter serious difficulties under the Act in legally conceiving the child who is the subject of this case. While courts across the country deliberate over who exactly is a parent, with what rights, and in what context, the queer family forms they are scrutinizing are arguably being regulated out of existence.In this case comment I will first discuss D.W.H in relation to recent legislative and jurisprudential trends in Canadian family law. I then go on to discuss the larger legislative context in which this case law is being developed: in particular, the ways that queer family forms may be impacted by the Act.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".