Beyond <i>Beyond Conjugality</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2001, the Law Commission of Canada (LCC) released its report Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Adult Relationships. 1 In the report, the LCC sought to rethink the ways in which conjugality has been used by legislatures and governments as a proxy for the recognition of adult personal relationships and the legal distribution of rights and responsibilities.Conjugality, it argued, was a poor proxy for the relational attributes relevant to legislative objectives.The LCC argued that the law should more carefully tailor its definitions of adult personal relationships to the underlying objectives of state regulation.The Beyond Conjugality report has been extensively debated and cited since its release.Even though it is too early, from the Law Commission's long-term perspective, to come up with a final assessment of the contributions made by the Beyond Conjugality report, this paper assesses the report's impact on scholarly and political debates thus far.We consider whether the assumptions and methodology underlying the report remain *
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".