Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to alert Bench and Bar to the cutting edge of tomorrow’s arguments in Family Law. The dichotomy between law in theory and law in action is underlined, and practical hints are offered to lawyers concerning the proper management of a family law file. Substantive legal issues are also addressed with specific regard to current controversies concerning spousal support orders under the Divorce Act, 1985, (S.C. 1986, c. 4). The popular notion that this Act introduced only cosmetic changes is challenged and the significance of the rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada in Pelech, Richardson and Caron is addressed in some detail. Particular attention is paid to the effect of prior agreements on spousal and child support claims under the new Divorce Act. The conduct of the parties is viewed from a realistic as well as a doctrinal perspective and the role of fixed term spousal support orders is briefly analysed. The blending of theory and practice should prove that there is much to be said for the proposition that “each case depends on its own facts” and one of these facts is the philosophical approach of the particular judge to marriage, divorce and ongoing spousal support after the judicial termination of marriage.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.027 |
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".