Recognising Non-Conjugal Relationships in New Zealand: Should We Extend the Rights and Responsibilities of Marriage and Marriage-Like Relationships to Other Caring Relationships?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis considers whether the legal recognition of non-conjugal relationships\nin New Zealand should be improved; particularly by extending them the rights\nand responsibilities of marital and marriage-like (conjugal) relationships. For\nthe purpose of this thesis, “non-conjugal” relationships are close, caring platonic\nrelationships where people share their lives to a significant degree.\nOver the last decade, there has been a trend toward extending the legal\nconsequences of marriage to non-conjugal relationships in countries such as\nAustralia, Canada and the United States. At the same time, the distinction\nbetween conjugal and non-conjugal relationships has been destabilised, due to\nthe de-emphasis of sexual intimacy as a criterion for recognising marriage-like\nrelationships.\nThis thesis considers whether the marriage model should be extended to include\ncertain non-conjugal relationships in New Zealand, as it has been overseas. It is\nclear that non-conjugal relationships can exhibit many of the features associated\nwith conjugal relationships, as demonstrated by the high profile Burden sisters'\ncase in the United Kingdom. These include characteristics such as long-term\ncohabitation, caring, commitment and interdependency. However, non-conjugal\nrelationships typically exhibit these features to a lesser degree, which means\nthat they may have different needs and require different support from the state.\nUltimately, this thesis recommends against extending the marriage model to\nnon-conjugal relationships for a number of reasons, including that the marriage\nmodel does not appear to respond adequately to the needs or living\narrangements of people in non-conjugal relationships. However, this thesis also\nsuggests that non-conjugal relationships in New Zealand can benefit from legal\nrecognition in some cases. Aside from human rights considerations, the state\nhas an interest in promoting these relationships due to their contribution to\nsocial cohesion and informal caregiving. As such, this thesis recommends a\nnew framework for recognising personal relationships that also allows for nonconjugal\nrelationships in New Zealand to be supported and promoted by the\nlaw, where appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".