Irreconcilable Differences: Family Alternative Dispute Resolution for Canadian Muslims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muslim families seeking to resolve private disputes in accordance with their religious values and in compliance with Canadian law face multifaceted access to justice issues. They are burdened with duplicative responsibilities trying to simultaneously meet their obligations towards religious and secular legal systems. Islamic law urges Muslim minorities to obey the laws of the land in a non-Muslim state; however, it also urges them to facilitate dispute-resolution mechanisms to reconcile governing law and religious practices. Islamic marriage and divorce laws do not always align with federal and provincial family legislation. Unlike Canadian law, Islamic divorce proceedings requires the husband the intervention of a Muslim judge. They also prescribe substantive obligations and rights for divorcees comparable to the corollary relief provided by provincial family law statutes. The absence of religious quasi-judicial dispute resolution mechanisms pose barriers to Muslims: (1) obtaining a religious divorce or annulment, and (2) acquiring subsequent relief, such as financial settlements and custody, in accordance with religious beliefs. In addition to the doctrinal analyses of secular and religious theories of adjudication and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), this thesis employs a qualitative method narrating the experiences of 20 Canadian imams with family dispute resolution. To respond to these overlapping barriers, the thesis analyzes forms of Islamic legal authority to: (1) grant religious divorce or annulment, and (2) mediate or arbitrate corollary relief applying religious laws in domestic contracts and arbitral awards.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".