Bibliographic record
Abstract
La r~glementation introduite rcemment en Ontario en mati~re d'arbitrage familial repr~sente une rupture importante avec la politique existante sur l'arbitrage. Le nouveau cadre comporte un m&anisme compliqu6 de freins et de contrepoids visant A pr~munir les parties vuln~rables contre des accords pouvant intervenir avant rarbitrage. Il remet en question les principes bien 6tablis en mati~re d'arbitrage que sont 'autonomie des parties, la finalit6, et la confidentialit& Cet article passe en revue les nouvelles exigences en mati~re d'arbitrage familial en vertu de la Loi de 2006 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne des questions familiales et 6tablit une comparaison avec les recommandations de Marion Boyd, ex-procureure g~n~rale de l'Ontario, contenues dans son rapport intitul6 Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion (,, Risolution de conflits dans le droit familial : prottger le choix, promouvoir l'inclusion ,,). Les forces et les faiblesses du nouveau cadre d'arbitrage familial sont discut~es, ainsi que les implications pour les politiques, et la pratique, de l'arbitrage.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".