MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887547026 · doi:10.29173/mlj782

Rand on Family Law: Wives and Mothers at Mid-Century

2010· article· en· W2887547026 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAyn Rand and Brontë studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily lawLawPolitical sciencePsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Rand's oeuvre of nearly six hundred judgments, a mere twenty or so fall within the domain of family law.This is not surprising when one considers that the 1940s and 50s were not particularly active times for litigation, reform or evolution in Canadian family law. 1 Divorce required proof of adultery, support was determined less on the basis of need or ability to pay than on the basis of marital misconduct, and custody often went to the father despite development of the 'tender years' doctrine. 2 Family law decisions that Justice Rand did write dealt with a full range of issues including adoption, alimony, custody, divorce, marital property and the presumption of advancement; but almost none of these stand out as significant in shaping the family law regime of the nation as we know it in the twenty-first century.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.173 · 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