MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414192265 · doi:10.1017/9781839704710.006

The Same-Sex Marriage Debates

2024· other· en· W4414192265 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Bala

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionScholarshipGovernment (linguistics)Family lawInternational lawCommon law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I was very pleased to attend the ISFL Conference in Antwerp in July 2023, my first trip to Europe since the pandemic. It gave me a good opportunity to see old friends and to refl ect on the important role that the ISFL has played in my 40-plus-year career as a family law professor in Canada, and on some of the controversial issues that have been debated in the conferences and publications of the organisation, in particular regarding same-sex marriage. Some aspects of family law are themselves international law, in particular related to the Hague Conventions, and scholarship by ISFL members in diff erent countries is often directly cited and applied by domestic courts in Canada and elsewhere in dealing with these cases. These international aspects to family law have made the ISFL and conferences organised by prominent members like Prof. Marilyn Freeman especially valuable, providing fora for learning, discussion and debate. In some cases, a scholarly consensus developed at these meetings, such as on the need to better address issues of domestic violence in the implementation of Article 13 of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. That ultimately resulted in Lady Brenda Hale, myself and some government representatives and Permanent Bureau staff undertaking a project to prepare a Guide to Good Practice on the implementation of that provision of the Hague Convention. Most of family law is domestic, and in a federal country like Canada, often based on subnational laws, making international perspectives less immediately central, and controversies in other jurisdictions sometimes seem a little less pressing. At the Antwerp Conference, I much appreciated a spirited debate at one session between English colleagues about the minutiae of proper interpretation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 of the United Kingdom. The issue of the legal status of trans parents is certainly a live issue in my jurisdiction, but we have our own legislative and constitutional context, so the details of the discussion were less interesting to me than witnessing the level of passion and hearing about the social context of the debate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0300.033
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207