Securing a future for children: the internacional obligation to protect and assist the natural family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper argues that Art. 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become customary international law, and therefore, all States are obliged to promote, protect and give preference to the natural family based on marriage between one male and one female (in a nuclear or extended family arrangement) over so-called ¿new family forms¿ (e.g. cohabitating opposite-sex and/or same-sex couples). This means that States breach their obligation under Art. 16 (3) when they treat so-called alternative forms of families as equivalent to the family based on heterosexual marriage (i.e. giving the same benefits). The paper uses Canada as a case study to illustrate how it has breached its obligations. To this end, the paper will consider how and why the Canadian federal government has contributed to the crisis of the natural family in Canada as manifested through increasing rates of separation and divorce as well as of alternative family forms (i.e. cohabitation arrangements and so forth) and their treatment as equivalent to the natural family
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".