MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751432287 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340009

Demanding Equal Rights and Treatment of Husbands/Partners in Paternity Disputes: A South African Perspective

2016· article· en· W2751432287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boitumelo Mmusinyane

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresumptionDignityLegitimacyGeneral partnershipPerspective (graphical)Best interestsLawPolitical scienceBalance (ability)InequalityIdentity (music)SociologyLaw and economicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legitimacy presumption poses a threat to the equality of parties in a marriage/partnership in today’s constitutional society. The approach adopted by courts in paternity disputes reveals an ongoing inequality in marriages/partnerships. The marriage/partnership is being used by courts to prevent a husband/partner from introducing a paternity claim on the assumption that doing so is not in the best interests of the child. Courts should be cautious in using children as a mechanism for preventing a husband/partner from determining their biological relationship. The child’s best interests can only be advanced if children know his biological identity. Husband/partner must have the right to know their biological relationship to their wives/partner’s children. A husbands/partners’ right to assert his paternity claims, on a balance of probabilities and on an equal basis is an inherent right to dignity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207