An Evaluation of Alberta's Family Law Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Alberta Family Law Act (FLA) was enacted on October 1, 2005 in an effort to modernize, rationalize and consolidate Alberta family law, streamline court procedures, and provide a non-adversarial approach to resolving family conflict in the best interests of children and families. With funding form the Alberta Law Foundation, the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family (CRILF) conducted a two-year evaluation of the legislation in order to determine whether the procedural and substantive changes are fair, effective, and efficient. The objectives of this study were to: 1. Develop a detailed evaluation framework, including measurement tools and instruments. CRILF worked with the Steering Committee to determine what was feasible in terms of data collection and measurement. The evaluation framework guided the remainder of the project; 2. Evaluate the impact of the procedural changes that have resulted from the FLA. A significant change under the Family Law Act was the streamlining of court procedures. The project examined the impact of this change on workload to see if the Act has been successful in its objectives of procedural effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility; 3. Evaluate the impact of the substantive changes outlined in the FLA. Substantively, the Family Law Act deals with all aspects of family law in a nondivorce context. The Act recognizes changing social conditions and updates key legal concepts. It is important to assess whether the changes have been fair, effective, and efficient; and, 4. Inform recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the FLA and to fine tune provisions.
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 | 0.079 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".