Review of the Provincial Framework for Action Against Family Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Framework was reviewed by the Department of Justice Monitoring Committee in 1999, the Committee recommended that the Department of Justice coordinate a focused consultation with key community and justice system stakeholders to review the experience of provincial jurisdictions which have enacted provincial/family violence legislation and to determine, in light of the results obtained from the Framework for Action, whether the adoption of such legislation would benefit victims of spousal/partner violence and their children.(4)\nIn the jurisdictional comparison and literature review done as part of this review, we looked at the legislation that exists in six Canadian jurisdictions and at reviews done of this legislation, and we questioned stakeholders in those provinces about their views on the value of the legislation.(5)\nEvaluations and discussions with other jurisdictions demonstrate that victims appreciate the immediacy of protection and the practical remedies of exclusive occupation of the home and temporary care and custody of the children. Five years after the adoption of the Framework, it may be time to reconsider the decision not to enact civil domestic violence legislation and to look more seriously at the additional range of remedies provided under the legislation in other provinces.
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 | 0.039 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".