Judging Family Violence: Recommendations for Judicial Practices and Guidelines in Family Violence Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been some recent legal developments that compel us to consider the role and responsibilities of judges in cases involving family violence. First, amendments to the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), came into effect in March 2021 and the Act now stipulates that family violence is a factor relevant to the best interests of the child. Family violence is finally recognized federally as germane to judicial decisions on parenting, though it is not explicitly recognized as relevant to whether negotiated settlements are an appropriate expectation, which has important implications for the judge’s role in this area. Second, there has been heightened attention to judicial education in the context of gender-based violence, most directly through Bill C-3 (Second Session, Forty-third Parliament). This Bill received Royal Assent in May 2021 and revised the Judges Act, RSC 1985, c J-1, such that in order to be eligible for appointment to superior courts, prospective judges undertake to participate in continuing education on sexual assault law and social context (s 3(b)). While limited to sexual violence, these amendments raise issues about judicial education that are relevant in the family violence context as well. Third, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) released its newly revised Ethical Principles for Judges (EPJ) in June 2021. The EPJ do not explicitly reference family violence, which is a concern, but there are also opportunities to interpret the EPJ to ensure that family violence considerations are front of mind for judges hearing cases or conducting judicial mediation. In this post, we consider these developments and make recommendations for judicial practices and guidelines that better reflect the gravity and context of family violence.
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 | 0.202 | 0.341 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.062 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".