Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islamic Law in Canada: Marriage and Divorce provides an analysis of how Canadian society and the Canadian judicial system have responded to the use of the Shari'a to resolve issues relating to Islamic marriage and divorce in Canada. This dissertation explores two instances where Canadian society has been forced to address the role of the Shari'a in Canada and its interaction with Canadian laws and values. The first involves the debate that took place in Ontario over the last decade concerning the use of Islamic arbitration in family matters. This public debate ultimately led to the rejection of faith-based arbitration in that province, a decision apparently consistent with traditional Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism. The second area of interaction between Canadian and Islamic law is within the Canadian court system itself. In particular, Canadian judges are occasionally required to grapple with Islamic family law issues when rendering judgments on certain cases that appear before them. This dissertation will examine a number of such cases in order to illustrate how the Shari'a has been addressed by Canadian judges. The overall aim of this work is to situate Islamic law within Canada's liberal framework. It is argued that although Canadians are amenable to certain levels of diversity, values that fall outside mainstream liberalism are not granted recognition. This dissertation will also demonstrate that the failure to legitimize Islamic arbitration represents a lost opportunity that would have broadened the scope of Canadian justice to include minority voices. The decision to reject faith-based arbitration will motivate some Muslims to seek justice from ad-hoc bodies of authority. Devoid of government oversight, these forms of underground Islamic justice may negatively affect certain members of Canada's Muslim community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".