Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the treatment of joint custody in the British Columbia Court of Appeal from 1996 through 2008, comparing to the “cautious” approach taken by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The B.C. Court of Appeal has taken a strong stance against the use of presumptions, either for or against joint custody. However, in a society and a legal system that increasingly favours shared parenting, the lack of a cautionary approach to joint custody can lead to complacency about its appropriateness in circumstances that either generate risk (to a parent or a child) or are not conducive to consensual decision-making. Moreover, the ability of B.C. judges to order joint guardianship (which usually connotes some form of joint decision-making) even when joint custody is deemed inappropriate suggests that the trend towards some form of joint award is quite strong. That said, judges often craft an award that preserves final decision-making for one parent.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".