MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608672970 · doi:10.3917/drs.095.0043

Des avocats et des parents. Demandes profanes et conseils juridiques pour la prise en charge des enfants au Québec

2017· article· fr· W2608672970 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDroit et société · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans un contexte québécois de déjudiciarisation des séparations conjugales, cet article s’intéresse aux rôles des avocat-e-s dans la formalisation des demandes parentales lorsque les litiges concernent les enfants (garde et pension alimentaire). Les interactions entre avocat-e-s et client-e-s reconduisent une conception genrée des rôles parentaux. L’injonction commune à la coparentalité se traduit par l’encouragement des pères à faire valoir leurs droits, sous réserve qu’ils assument leur rôle de « pourvoyeur », et par le rappel des mères à leurs devoirs, en particulier au respect de cette injonction. La valorisation de la place du père perd de sa vigueur pour les mères les plus précaires qui sont plutôt incitées à se débrouiller seules dans la prise en charge des enfants face à des pères souvent absents et hors du champ d’action des avocat-e-s.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.351 · 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