Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2008, the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its landmark decision in Fisher v. Fisher. For a short while, there was a period of adjustment, not only to Fisher's endorsement of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, but also to its imposition of a time limit after a 19-year marriage. The early response to Fisher was canvassed by Carol Rogerson and me in "Fisher and After: The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in Ontario" (May 28,2008), prepared for last year's 2nd Family Law Summit.\nThose early cases revealed "a disturbing trend for courts to impose time limits, purportedly following Fisher, in cases where there are still dependent children in the care of the recipient of spousal support", we said in "Fisher and After". But Ontario courts have gotten over that initial over-reaction to Fisher, and time limits are now being used more carefully.\nFisher has also encouraged much more frequent use of the Advisory Guidelines in a wider range of spousal support cases, so that the Ontario case law has become richer and more varied, much more like the British Columbia case law. In Fisher, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that, if one of the parties argues the Advisory Guidelines, then the trial judge should include "reasons explaining why the Guidelines do not provide an appropriate result", if the judge produces a result outside the Guidelines ranges. Invariably, one of the two parties will like the Guidelines ranges for amount and duration, ensuring that the Advisory Guidelines will be addressed in most spousal support decisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.005 |
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".