Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the best interests of the child in dozens of cases and in 2015 revisited the principle in the context of an extradition case and an immigration case. In MM v United States of America the issue was whether a mother should be extradited to the US state of Georgia to face charges of interference with the father’s custodial rights. In Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) the issue was whether a 17-year-old should be exempted from the requirement that permanent residence applications be made outside of Canada. A far more expansive approach to the best interests of the child principle was taken in the latter case. The different approaches to the best interests of the child principle taken in the two cases can be explained in part by the different contexts and statutory frameworks. As well, the cases evince different understandings of the appropriate role of courts in judicial review of decisions made by the executive branch of government.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".