Intimacy, Rights and the Parent-Child Relationship: Rethinking Freedom of Association in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author argues that constitutional protection should be accorded to important human relationships, such as the parent-child relationship, pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Building upon the affirmation of a relational approach to human rights in feminist theory, the article examines the extent to which Canadian constitutional law recognizes the associalional interests of parents and children in the continuity and enjoyment of intimate family relationships. The article then seeks insights from comparative law by reviewing legal developments in the United States and Europe on the parent-child relationship. Returning to Canadian constitutional law, the author elaborates a constitutional conception of freedom of intimate association that embraces the parent-child relationship, while raising potential questions and concerns regarding such constitutional protection.Dans cet article, l'auteur soutient qu'il faudrait accorder une protection constitutionnelle aux relations humaines qui sont importantes, comme la relation parentenfant, et ce, en conformite avec la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes. A partir d'une conception relationnelle des droits de la personne que l'on affirme dans la theorie feministe, l'article examine quel est le degre de reconnaissance accorde par le droit constitutionnel canadien aux interets collectifs des parents et des enfants dans la continuite et la jouissance des relations familiales intimes. On cherche ensuite, un eclairage dans le droit compare, en passant en revue les developpements juridiques aux Etats-Unis et en Europe en ce qui concerne la relation parent-enfant. De retour au droit constitutionnel canadien, l'auteur elabore une conception constitutionnelle de la liberte deformer une association intime, qui englobe la relation parent-enfant, tout en soulevant des questions eventuelles et des craintes a l'egard d'une telle protection constitutionnelle.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".