Experience with Ontario’s <i>Parenting Plan Guide</i> and <i>Template</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Detailed, voluntary parenting plans are being increasing used in many jurisdictions. In conjunction with legislative reforms that came into effect in Canada in 2021 and specifically provide for parenting plans in place of traditional custody and access orders, the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-O) tasked a multidisciplinary group to prepare materials to assist professionals and parents in making parenting plans, including providing developmentally appropriate advice about parenting time schedules. This research project involved surveys and interviews with a total of 103 participants (lawyers, judges, mediators, mental health professionals, and parents) about their experiences with parenting plans and the AFCC-O materials. The use of parenting plans has increased as a result of the legislative changes, new resources to assist in making plans, and the accompanying professional education programmes. Professionals and parents appreciate having access to the type of jurisdictionally specific resource materials prepared by multidisciplinary groups, and judges have made significant use of these materials. The materials are especially useful for parents who have access to appropriate professional support and who have good literacy skills, and for lower conflict cases. It is, however, clear that the parenting plan materials have limitations, and in particular these resources have limited utility for self-represented litigants and cannot help in resolving higher conflict cases and those cases where family violence exists.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it