“This Isn’t Justice”: Abused Women Navigate Family Law in Greater Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the implementation of the Family Law Act in 2013, the family legal system in British Columbia saw a series of progressive reforms. These include the recognition of emotional, psychological, and financial control as family violence, a new protection order process to replace the limited restraining orders formerly available to abuse victims, a mandate that courts consider how exposure to family violence impacts children, and minimum mandatory training standards for family dispute resolution professionals. While there has been a great deal of legal commentary on these new provisions, there is a paucity of scholarly research documenting the experiences of frontline workers who support abused women. We address this lacuna, drawing on in-depth interviews with family lawyers and frontline advocates who assist women exiting violent relationships in greater Vancouver. Our findings highlight the many challenges facing women in the family law system and suggest that the perceived unfairness many women experience is neither accidental nor uncommon. Rather, structural barriers to getting into the courtroom, in addition to widespread judicial ignorance about family law and family violence disadvantage women seeking just separations from abusive partners. To better meet the needs of abused women in greater Vancouver, increased funding for legal aid and support services, mandatory family violence training for judges making decisions on family files, and the transformation of victim-blaming attitudes within and beyond the courtroom are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".