MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Marriage, Family, and Federal Concerns

2017· book-chapter· en· W2546903642 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Leckey, Carol Rogerson

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalismLegislatureCharterDiversity (politics)Political scienceFamily lawCorporate governanceLaw and economicsLawSociologyDemocracyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter takes a broad view of the legal location of the family in the Canadian federation. We examine the interaction of the division of legislative powers—and its tension between uniformity and diversity—with other parts of our constitutional structure, such as Aboriginal rights and rights in the entrenched Charter. We look beyond formal constitutional text to consider the ways in which institutional structures and practices affect governance in this area. Sociologically, our chapter acknowledges the effect of overlapping legal traditions, two official languages, and the dramatic social changes that have driven recent reform of family law. What emerges is a complex picture of the regulatory framework that governs families. Elements of uniformity and diversity—within and outside our constitutional structure—coexist and interact in ways that defy easy categorization and offer insights for comparative constitutionalists more broadly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207