MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154429129

A Gendered Approach to “Quality of Life” after Separation under the British Columbia Family Law Act Relocation Regime

2021· article· en· W3154429129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meredith Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueAppeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationGuardianCredibilityFamily lawQuality (philosophy)Inclusion (mineral)DistancingPolitical scienceFamily reunificationLawPsychologySociologySocial psychologyMedicineImmigration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As established in existing literature, the separation of spouses has gendered consequences. Women are likely to suffer more severely, financially, from the dissolution of a relationship and are more likely to experience family violence. Mothers in heterosexual relationships are more likely to have care of children after separation than are fathers. In the face of those challenges, many guardians will apply to relocate for reasons that include seeking out emotional support from extended family and new partners, better financial opportunities, and housing affordability and availability. This article charts and analyzes British Columbia court decisions made under the Division 6 Relocation provisions of the Family Law Act. In Division 6, legislators have directed courts to consider the effects of a proposed relocation on a child’s quality of life and that of the guardian who proposed relocation. This article examines how courts have engaged with the many gendered aspects of quality of life following separation. It finds that courts’ recognition of family violence’s repercussions is uneven and recommends the explicit inclusion of family violence in the Division 6 quality of life provision. It identifies the following as areas for further judicial education: first, family violence and its connections to courts’ assessment of female applicants’ credibility and to barriers to accessing housing and, second, potential biases in assessments of new female versus new male partners of applicant parents in heterosexual relationships.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAppeal: Review of Current Law and Law ReformSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207