L’Adoption Coutumière Autochtone En Droit Civil Québécois (Aboriginal Customary Adoption in Quebec Civil Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le Code civil du Quebec prevoit desormais que l’adoption coutumiere autochtone produit des effets civils lorsqu’elle est attestee par l’autorite competente designee par une communaute ou nation autochtone. Cette reconnaissance met fin au monopole des institutions etatiques concernant la modification de la filiation et accroit le role de la coutume comme source de droit. A cet egard, elle se distingue d’autres reformes qui, elles aussi, visaient a rapprocher le droit a la pratique familiale. Des reticences de la part du systeme de protection de la jeunesse et de la magistrature sont donc previsibles lors de l’application du nouveau mecanisme. L’ingerence etatique par l’entremise du critere de l’interet de l’enfant risque d’etre problematique. Les sequelles causees par l’appareil de la protection de la jeunesse en milieu autochtone appellent les autorites etatiques a respecter la pratique coutumiere y compris les interpretations de l’interet de l’enfant qui different des leurs. English Abstract: Under the Civil Code of Quebec, aboriginal customary adoption now produces civil effects once attested by a competent authority of the aboriginal community or nation. This recognition ends the monopoly of state institutions regarding changes to filiation and increases the role of custom as a source of law. In this way, it departs from other reforms that aimed to narrow the gap between law and family practice. Actors in the judiciary and youth protection system might foreseeably hesitate as they apply the new mechanism. In particular, state interference through the criterion of the best interests of the child may prove problematic. The serious harms caused by youth protection in the aboriginal context call state authorities to be respectful of customary practice, including interpretations of the best interest of the child that differ from their own.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".