Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November of 2016, an Ontario court made Canadian legal history when it recognized the parentage of a non-biological mother who was not and had never been in a conjugal relationship with her son’s other mother. The two “co-mamas” are friends (and now family) but are neither spouses nor common law partners (or ex-partners) but have successfully collaborated in raising their son who has multiple and complex disabilities. News reports of the legal recognition of this non-conjugal parental pair generated a remarkable response both in Canada and around the world, suggesting a public readiness to imagine new forms of parenting that transcend the traditional model of “love-marriage-baby carriage”. Though the Canadian public seemed ready to accept this non-traditional family, the Ontario legislature apparently was not; legislation passed just weeks after the declaration of parentage issued would have prohibited the court from granting the order because the intention to parent arose after the child’s birth. This Article considers whether it is time to remove conjugality as a criterion for co-parental relationships in Canadian family law. We argue that the hegemony of the traditional nuclear family is no longer tenable in the 21st century and indeed has never been the norm among many socio-cultural groups. Moreover, the state has an obligation to support any form of parental relationship that serves the best interests of children, particularly where those children have special needs that require extraordinary investments in time, money and care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".