Bibliographic record
Abstract
Who sues when cohabiting relationships unwind, before and after reform that extends matrimonial sharing of family property to cohabitants? This article reports findings from the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where reform aimed to divert cohabitants from claims in unjust enrichment. The article reports on a comparison of the litigants in judgments in unjust enrichment pre-reform and under the extended family legislation. Factors studied include the sexes of the plaintiffs and defendants, distribution of household labour, presence of children, relationship duration, and money awarded. The findings show continuity in the profile of litigants, with relatively few claims from short unions post-reform. Money awards increased and patterns of household labour diversified somewhat. Findings highlight that intensifying the financial consequences of cohabitation may multiply disputes over the nature of unions and their duration. These disputes flag up the unlikelihood of achieving wholly identical treatment for married and unmarried partners. The findings might lead opponents and proponents of law reform to temper their discourse. Extending property sharing to cohabitants after a relatively short union (minimum 2 years) did not flood the judicial system. Nor did it eliminate procedural and evidentiary hurdles distinctive to cohabitants relative to married spouses.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".