MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125955148

Severing the Link between Marriage and Children's Best Interests: A Canadian Case Study

2009· article· en· W3125955148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianQuarter (Canadian coin)Best interestsSame sexGender studiesPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceLawGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the attitudes of lesbian mothers towards same-sex marriage, focusing in particular on how they perceive the relationship between marriage and children's best interests. The article draws on 36 semi-structured interviews with lesbian mothers living in British Columbia and Alberta, comparing their views on marriage and children's best interests with those articulated by lesbian and gay litigants during the Canadian same-sex marriage campaign. In contrast to the emphasis on marriage and parenting in the marriage litigation, the author found that few of the mothers interviewed made any positive link between having married parents and children's best interests. Only a quarter of the couples had married or intended to marry. Law reform directed at same-sex families should therefore not presume that lesbians perceive there to be any positive relationship between marriage and children's best interests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0380.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207