MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014644077

Quebec's Filiation Regime, The <i>Roy Report</i>'s Recommendations, and the 'Interest of the Child'

2018· article· en· W7014644077 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily and Matrimonial Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsConversationCommon lawLegislatureFamily lawCivil law (Civil law)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes Quebec’s filiation regime and explains some of the Roy Report’s recommendations to reform parent-child relationships in Quebec. While this report is unlikely to lead to legislative change, it represents an important insight into issues animating family law in Quebec today. The Roy Report anchors filiation and family law to the ‘interest of the child’, a notion likely different from the best interests of the child in common law. The article offers some critical and comparative analysis of current and proposed rules. It makes this lesser known area of Quebec civil law accessible in English and to common lawyers in Canada. It hopes to promote a conversation between jurists from Quebec and common law jurisdictions, especially those where family law has recently been reformed.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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