MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011425376

Marital status discrimination in the allocation of rights, obligations, and benefits: Legal paths to protect non-normative families
\n

2019· dissertation· en· W7011425376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUnitn-eprints PhD (University of Trento) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)ConventionEuropean unionHuman rightsFamily lawConstitutional lawWork (physics)Family life
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present dissertation addresses the problem of the insufficient recognition of non-traditional families. “Non-traditional” or “new” family is a composite category which encompasses non-normative conjugal families, as polyamorous relationships, and non-conjugal families (made up of relatives or friends, which lack a sexual component.) The aim of the research is to present the non-recognition of these new networks of care as a problem, and thereafter to build legal arguments to confer private and public family law entitlements upon them in selected legal systems: Canada, the United States, and the two meta-national systems of the European Convention of Human Rights and on European Union in Europe.
\nThe research has been conducted through “fieldwork” in the mentioned systems. It demonstrates that too often the legal framework is not aligned with the current landscape of family patterns, marked by an increasing family pluralism. This misalignment is the by-product of a choice by the systems under review to still take the marital family as the relevant basis for allocating family law benefits, rights, and obligations.
\nThus, after having expounded the different models for recognizing new families, the analysis moves to build legal arguments to introduce legal protections in each of the selected jurisdictions. These arguments are: a constitutional and policy-based argument in the U.S., a constitutional and policy-based argument in Canada, and ultimately two arguments resting on the European Convention of Human Rights and on European Union law in Europe. 
\nOne is to be alert to the fact that this field of research is still a work in progress, owing to the fact that case law is at an early stage of development and that only a handful of legal schemes open to new families have been enacted so far. This dissertation thus attempts to gather and systematize all the relevant legal material instrumental to building legal arguments, with an awareness that further legal developments are needed before these arguments can reach a high likelihood of success before courts or legislative bodies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnitn-eprints PhD (University of Trento)Same topicDiscrimination and Equality LawFrench-language works237,207