MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609705048

Lawyers and Parents: Layman Demands and Legal Advice About Child Care in Quebec

2017· article· en· W2609705048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muriel Mille, Hélène Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueDroit et société · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal adviceContext (archaeology)Child custodyChild careFamily courtRepresentation (politics)Political sciencePsychologyLawSocial psychologySociologyMedicineNursingGeographyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of Quebec, where out-of-court settlements are promoted in marital dissolutions, this article examines the role of lawyers in the legal formulation of parental demands in cases involving children (custody, child support). Interactions between lawyers and clients reproduce gender stereotypes of parental roles. With the principle of joint parenthood, fathers are encouraged to make their rights prevail, under the condition that they play the role of breadwinner. Mothers are encouraged to be mindful of their duties, especially joint parenthood. The valorization of the father’s role loses steam when fathers are missing and without legal representation while mothers living in economic insecurity care for their children by themselves.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDroit et sociétéSame topicMigration, Identity, and HealthFrench-language works237,207