Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines family law in the context of the federal government's harmonization of federal law with the civil law of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces. Family law is a rich subject for harmonization because its organizing concepts are simultaneously legal and social constructs. A careful examination of the legal sources creating family law is a necessary step prior to harmonization, and the author takes a more expansive view than usual of the sources defining the family. He suggests clarifying the core of conceptual conflict by identifying the various legislative objectives of family law regimes: protection of vulnerable individuals, organization of relations between individuals, and definition of the state's relation to individuals. Then he turns to family law's dynamic impact on personal identity and the ways in which people define themselves using concepts shaped by law. Legislatures sometimes deploy family law to define people's identities; this practice is now mirrored in claims by individuals that state law should reflect their own values and identities, embracing a model of reflective law. The author then contrasts internal harmonization (reducing conceptual conflicts within the state legal order) with external harmonization (increasing coherence between state and non-state normativities). Regulation of same-sex couples illustrates the interaction between the state legal order and other normativities and the ways in which the state may acknowledge other systems. Analysis of claims in favour of same-sex marriage reveals that, given substantive reforms already achieved, arguments for marriage now depend on family law's symbolic elements affecting identity and presuppose a reflective family law. There is as yet no consensus on this role for family law, however, and family law's complexity and impact on identity militate for reform that is cautious and incremental.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".