Shared Parenting in Canada: Increasing Use But Continued Controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a complex interplay between federal and provincial parenting statutes in Canada. Although most statutes continue to use the traditional concepts of “custody” and “access,” in practice most lawyers and judges use more child‐focused terminology for parenting plans. There is a lack of reliable data on postseparation parenting in Canada, though a number of studies and data sources clearly indicate that there is growing use of various forms of shared parenting. Child support law in Canada defines “shared custody,” as occurring if each parent has the child at least 40% of the time, and this arrangement currently is used in about a fifth of parenting orders. Reform of the parenting‐related provisions of Canada's Divorce Act remains contentious. We argue for statutory change to abandon the archaic terminology of “custody” and “access” and for adoption of more child‐focused terminology. We do not support proposals made by fathers’ rights advocates in Canada for a presumption of equal parenting time.
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 | 0.036 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".