Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION While traditionally Canadian courts and legislatures discouraged involvement of children in family proceedings, there is growing acceptance that children's views and wishes must be considered by decision-makers in these proceedings. However, while Canadian law now requires that the perspectives and preferences of children ‘shall’ be considered, children do not have a ‘right of participation’, and there is great variation in how, and indeed whether, their views are considered in family proceedings. Canada has 10 provinces and three territories with an estimated population of 38,008,005 people as of 31 December 2020. There are no national statistics on the number of marriages, divorces or parental separations in Canada, or regarding the number of children involved in family disputes, and only limited provincial data on family proceedings, with no systemic information about how children's views are considered. However, census and tax data reveals that the marriage and divorce rates have been falling and that over one fifth of couples cohabit outside of marriage rather than marrying. While the number of children affected by parental separation is not known, a 2011 General Social Survey (GSS) found that 24% of separated or divorced parents in Canada had children under the age of 18 years. In an 18-month longitudinal study of parents in Ontario and Quebec involved in family proceedings involving children (both represented by legal counsel and self-represented), researchers found that approximately 12 months after an initial in-person survey, only 13 out of 113 cases had an assessment by a mental health professional, a report from a social worker on the child's views, or child legal representation ordered by the court. In other words, only 12% of parenting disputes that resulted in continued court proceedings had a mental health professional or lawyer obtain children's views and preferences. Another Ontario study of 1,000 court files involving parental disputes found that the Ontario Office of the Children's Lawyer 6 was only involved in 3.1% of court cases, which resulted in child legal representation being provided in 2.2% of cases and a clinical investigation report (e.g. publicly paid report) in 0.9% of cases. Mental health professionals in private practice prepared evaluation reports in only 0.5% of cases in the court sample.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.593 | 0.301 |
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".