Bambi Meets Godzilla: Children's and Parents' Rights in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law V. Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike parental rights, with their ancient pedigree, children’s rights have a relatively recent origin in law, derived largely from international obligations. Since the emergence of the rights of children as rights entitled to recognition in Canada, they have coexisted somewhat uneasily with parents’ rights. The author considers this tension between parental and children’s rights in the context of the Supreme Court’s recent guidance on the defence of reasonable correction in the Criminal Code in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada.After canvassing the judgment’s reasons, the author argues that the majority’s guidelines for the application of the defence suffer from crucial definition gaps. These gaps both hamper efforts to remedy its current uncertainty and fail to address themes of sexual discipline that often underlie the most controversial cases. Moreover, by failing to recognize that parental and children’s rights are innately intertwined and inform each other, and by privileging parental autonomy, the Court’s decision effectively subsumes children’s rights into parental ones. As a result, the tension between the two is glossed over, but only at significant cost to children’s autonomy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| 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".