Cohabitant protection on relationship breakdown in Ireland: A lesson in illusory justice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The issue of how best to respond to the needs of cohabitants on relationship breakdown continues to generate significant discussion. Law reform and parliamentary bodies in jurisdictions as disparate as England and Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, and Alberta, Canada have each recently reflected on their laws in this regard, advancing proposals for reform. Almost all of these international bodies considered the statutory cohabitation scheme adopted in Ireland. However, despite being in place for over a decade, there has been no thorough examination of emerging case law under its Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 nor any investigation into the effectiveness of the system in protecting vulnerable cohabitants on relationship breakdown. Relying on the latest jurisprudence and available data, this article takes the first step in addressing this lacuna in the literature. Having identified serious limitations in the regime, particularly its stringent eligibility requirements, it presents the first meaningful research to tease out how the Irish scheme could be improved and presents a proposal for reform.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".