One Parent, Three Parents: Judges and Ontario’s All Families Are Equal Act, 2016
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article studies judges’ early treatment of a new law on parentage and assisted reproduction. During decades of legislative inaction, Ontario’s judges adapted the law to evolving familial practices, at times boldly. A legislative overhaul in 2016, aiming to recognize all children’s families equally and inclusively, raised the question whether judges would adopt a more restrained role post-reform. In two early cases, where the new conditions for automatic recognition of a parental arrangement were unmet, the judges emphasized the intention of involved adults. Closely reading the legislation, the article presents bases for deciding the cases otherwise and for reducing their potential to incentivize litigation. Where the legislature has set out a broad range of accessible paths to parentage, even judges who champion family diversity may have reasons to stick to those paths. For legislative drafters, the difficulty of anticipating the variety of contemporary forms of family may counsel against purporting to limit judicial discretion. Ontario’s experience also favours including transitional measures in major reform.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it