Les amoureux sur les bancs publics : Le traitement juridique du polyamour en droit québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur offre un tour d’horizon des manières dont le droit québécois désavantage les relations polyamoureuses. Dans la première partie, l’auteur définit le polyamour, le monoamour et certaines notions connexes. Dans les sections subséquentes, il avance une catégorisation du traitement juridique du polyamour. Selon son analyse, quatre angles sont exploités pour orienter les relations conjugales vers le monoamour et hors du polyamour : (1) limiter à deux le nombre de parents par enfant (biparenté vs pluriparenté), (2) faciliter la prestation de soins de conjoint·e à conjoint·e, (3) protéger les conjoint·es contre des vulnérabilités économiques, et (4) prohiber certains comportements polyamoureux (criminalisation de la polygamie). Bien que l’analyse juridique se concentre sur le Québec, cette catégorisation pourra certainement être adaptée pour examiner l’état du droit dans le reste du Canada.\nPar cet article, l’auteur pose les bases d’une réflexion sur le traitement juridique du polyamour. Une telle réflexion devient de plus en plus pressante alors qu’un nombre grandissant d’enfants vivent dans des ménages polyamoureux, que certains enfants naissent de ces unions et que plusieurs partenaires formalisent un des couples au travers du mariage, vulnérabilisant alors les autres relations. Peut-être souhaitera-t-on conserver certaines mesures (comme la criminalisation de la polygamie) tout en en délaissant d’autres (comme la limite de deux parents par enfant). Cet article permet de mieux repérer comment le droit catalyse ou inhibe des types de relations conjugales.\nThis article provides an overview of the ways in which Quebec law disadvantages polyamorous relationships. First, the author defines polyamory, monoamory, and related concepts. Next, he considers the judicial treatment of polyamorous people. According to his analysis, four approaches are used to orient people toward monogamous relationships and away from polyamorous relationships: (1) limiting to two the number of parents per child, (2) facilitating spousal care, (3) protecting spouses against economic vulnerability, and (4) prohibiting certain polyamorous arrangements (criminalization of polygamy). Even though this judicial analysis is focused on Quebec, this categorization may certainly be adapted to examine the state of the law in the rest of Canada.\nIn this article, the author lays out a framework for reflection on the legal treatment of polyamourous people. Such a framework has become more and more pressing as a growing number of children live in polyamorous households, as children are born to polyamorous unions, and as more partners formalize one of the couples through marriage, increasing the vulnerability of the other relationships. Perhaps we would like to maintain certain measures (like the criminalization of polygamy) while abandonning others (like the limit of two parents per child). This article allows us to better identify how the law catalyzes or inhibits various kinds of conjugal relations.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".