Sharing a Life: Manitoba Legislation Respecting Rights and Obligations of Common-Law Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initiative began in the summer of 2001 with Bill 41: An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M. v. H.on 30 June 2004 completes the third and last stage of a comprehensive legislative initiative to address issues affecting individuals in common-law relationships.2 Bill 41 amended support and support-like provisions in ten different Acts. 3 Gender neutral definitions of "common-law partner" and "common-law relationship" made provisions applicable to persons in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.The threshold dependency test was eliminated, and the requisite period of cohabitation was reduced from five years to three for support claims by common-law partners without children.Most of the amendments in Bill 41 came into force on Royal Assent on 6 July 2001; the pension-related amendments came into force I January 2002.4 In the summer of 2002, two omnibus Bills were passed by the Manitoba Legislature that affected the rights and obligations of common-law partners.The first, Bill 34, The Charter Compliance Act, 5 * Family Law Branch, Manitoba Justice.was passed on 1 August 2002.It amended 56 Acts to address the rights and obligations of same-sex commonlaw partners and, in some cases, to extend rights and obligations of married spouses to all common-law partners, regardless of gender.Most of the 1
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".