Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a study of all Quebec custody cases dealing with parental alienation in 2016. It explores the definitions, findings, and implications of parental alienation in legal disputes, in light of the models of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome described in the academic literature. This research confirms feminists’ skepticism towards the use of parental alienation in custody litigation. It concludes that alienation has varying and inconsistent definitions in law, that there is a considerable disconnect between the state of the research in science and judges’ knowledge on alienation, and that the concept of parental alienation in law is ambiguous and over-inclusive, seemingly to the detriment of mothers. There is a dire need for clearer and stricter guidelines on the use of parental alienation in Quebec jurisprudence to ensure its accuracy, coherence, and fairness. Cette thèse est une étude de toutes les décisions de garde d’enfant traitant d’aliénation parentale rendues au Québec en 2016. Elle explore les définitions, les raisonnements et les implications associées à l’aliénation parentale dans les litiges, à la lumière des modèles d’aliénation parentale et de syndrome d’aliénation parentale développés dans la littérature académique. Cette recherche confirme les préoccupations des féministes quant à l’utilisation du concept d’aliénation parentale dans les litiges sur la garde. Elle conclut que l’aliénation a des définitions variées et contradictoires en droit, qu’un fossé sépare l’état de la recherche en science et les connaissances des juges, et que le concept d’aliénation parentale en droit est ambigu et trop large, vraisemblablement au détriment des mères. Cette recherche conclut au besoin criant de lignes directrices claires et plus strictes relativement à l’utilisation de l’aliénation parentale dans la jurisprudence québécoise, afin d’en assurer l’exactitude, la cohérence et l’équité.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".