MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215460403 · doi:10.29173/mlj730

Sharing a Life: Manitoba Legislation Respecting Rights and Obligations of Common-Law Partners

2005· article· en· W3215460403 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colette Chelack, J. R. N. Macphail

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLawCommon lawPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207