Desertion: legislation and administration : a comparative review of desertion legislation in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario : administration of desertion legislation by Family Courts; implications for social work practice in British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study has been to review desertion legislation; and to examine social work participation in the administration of desertion laws. The key question posed is: Does legislation work in dealing with cases of desertion? In order to gather answers to the key question, pertinent legislation is reviewed. Included is: (a) The Canadian Criminal Code; (b) maintenance legislation of the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia; (c) common law remedies; and (d) certain English and American laws which pertain to desertion. To gain an understanding of the policies and problems of administering desertion legislation, interviews were held with those who are working daily with eases of desertion and non-support. Interviewed were; Judges of the Family Court, Magistrates, police, probation officers, provincial and municipal social welfare administrators, and social workers. The Family Court is the acknowledge authority in dealing with problems of desertion. Because of this, its policies were used as a guide in reviewing the procedures followed by other social welfare agencies throughout British Columbia. This study suggests that; (a) certain minor revisions would strengthen the British Columbia Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act; (b) desertion Is as much a social problem as a legal problem; (c) social workers would be well advised to consider taking a more active part in court cases involving desertion; (d) in the final analysis a man cannot be forced to support his dependents if he wilfully refuses; and (e) skillful social work help can assist many deserters to assume their maintenance responsibilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".