Part Three Child and Family Services Act Table of Concordance with Bill C-89
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, (41st Parl, 2nd Sess) Ontario (2017)\nTable of Concordance between Part III (Child Protection) of the Child and Family Services Act and Part V (Child Protection) of Bill C-89, An Act to enact the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2016, to amend and repeal the Child and Family Services Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.\nContents\nInterpretation- Definitions. 3\nChild in Need of Protection. 4\nBest Interests of Child. 5\nWhere child an Indian or native person. 6\nPlace of Safety. 6\nTemporary Care Agreements. 7\nLegal Representation. 11\nParties and Notice. 12\nCommencing Child Protection Proceedings. 13\nSpecial Cases of Apprehension of Children. 15\nHearings and Orders. 18\nAssessments. 24\nAccess. 29\nPayment Orders. 33\nSociety and Crown Wardship. 34\nReview.. 39\nAppeals. 47\nExpiry of Orders. 48\nExtended Care. 49\nDuty to Report 50\nReview Teams. 54\nCourt-Ordered Access to Records. 55\nChild Abuse Register 58\nPowers of Director 61\nOffences, Restraining Orders, Recovery on Child’s Behalf and Injunctions. 62
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.087 |
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".