THE CHANGING FAMILY, RIGHTS DISCOURSE AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few decades, family law has changed significantly while it has risen dramatically in profile. Recent Supreme Court cases on family law have attracted great public interest. The author argues that the increased profile of family law is tied to the monumental impact of the Charter and the rise of rights discourse in Canada and that, driven by this rights culture, the Supreme Court has increasingly become a leader in the reform process. The author canvasses Supreme Court family law jurisprudence, following its development from the relatively uneventful 1960s, through the watershed verdict in Murdoch v. Murdoch, to the turn of the twentieth century. The growth of a rights culture is traced through cases concerning family property, divorce, custody, support, reproductive autonomy and child' protection issues. By the 1990s, the Supreme Court is suggested by the author to have taken on a central role in the formation and development of family law that it did not play before. The author suggests that family law increasingly reflects in microcosm the most fundamental social issues and tensions facing Canadian society. It is further suggested that the Charter has influenced the development of family law in fundamental ways, giving family law has an increasingly public aspect. The author argues, therefore, that family law can no longer be characterized as an area of law simply falling within the domain of private 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".