MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937180997

SECTION 9 AND SECOND FAMILIES

2015· article· en· W2937180997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elliot SBirnboimandDaniella Murynka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderemploymentSpouseSection (typography)UnemploymentArgument (complex analysis)Relevance (law)Scale (ratio)Child supportEconomicsSociologyLabour economicsDemographic economicsPublic economicsPolitical scienceLawEconomic growthBusinessGeographyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the implications of section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for second families. The authors consider how underemployment or unemployment has been factored into the assessment of child support. The authors further discuss how increased household costs have been valued, how the courts have dealt with the argument that “free” childcare is being or should be provided in a new relationship, and the relevance of economies of scale created by the establishment of second families. Section 9 invites the courts to take into account the “conditions, means, needs and other circumstances” of spouses and children; the authors analyse cases dealing with increased household income and sharing of expenses where a spouse repartners, as well as the financial obligations of each spouse to the children. The authors conclude by commenting on the fairness of the current treatment of second families under Canadian law.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207