Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the historical revolution of custody regimes in Canada, with an emphasis on the twentieth century to custody practices in courts today. The law has undergone numerous critical reforms to restructure what it means to be a ‘political family’ from a socio-legal perspective. The last decade we have seen a shift in the framework that is used to define the concept of family that has paralleled changes in cultural values, gender roles and parental responsibilities. The family model now largely focuses on the child as the centerpiece of the framework, which has been reflected in recent legal reform and ongoing revisions. The shared responsibility of raising a child as a married couple reflects both the slight shift in the gender roles defined by society and the changing configuration of family dynamic from the nuclear family norm (traditional) towards a “political family”. In the political family, whether the family is “traditional” or “alternative”, each family is understood as a product of collective decisions and values. As a result of the shift towards the understanding of intersectionality within families, and acceptance of the complexity of families, legal activism in family law studies are pushing for legislation that can provide an all- encompassing framework to better aid judges within the family courts to reduce the potential for bias in judicial review. Family law studies are challenging the language around rights and obligations within a family and pushing for a “responsibility framework”. Further, the field is emphasizing a child-centered approach to divorce cases, to assess what is ultimately in the best interest of the child. As we understand the role of the family in society, we need to emphasize the responsibility of a parent and what it means to be a parent to better understand what ‘custody’ of a child entails in today’s society.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".