MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7111962068

Study of the Pratice of Family Mediation

2007· article· en· W7111962068 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDigiNole (Florida State University) · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueConflict Management and Negotiation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMediationFamily mediationFamily lawPrivate practiceMental health
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This study examined the practice of family mediation reported by 305 mediators in the United States, as well as trends in practice according to professional affiliation, mainly, law, mental health, social work and other. Data for this study were from a national survey of practicing family mediators of the then Academy of Family Mediators (Pasley & Hinkle, 2000), originally collected with the intention of replicating the Kruk (1998) study of Canadian mediators. Mediators' demographic characteristics, practice characteristics, issues, beliefs, and models guiding their work were examined, with a specific focus on differences between mediators' professional affiliation. Results showed that overall there were differences by professional affiliation in respondents regarding practice characteristics, but there were more similarities than differences regarding issues, beliefs and models used. Significantly more lawyer mediators had completed a doctoral degree, practiced in a private practice setting, and had a greater proportion of their clients who were voluntary (not mandated), compared to the other three groups (mental heath, social work, and "other"). Also, mediators in the law group were more likely than all other groups to charge fees, as well as charge a significantly higher amount in fees. Mediators affiliated with the law group reported mediating property issues significantly more frequently than did mediators affiliated with mental health, social work, or "other". Similar results were also found their frequency of mediating child support issues and spousal support issues. Parenting (custody) was the only divorce-related issue where the groups did not differ. Further, mediators affiliated with law less frequently included meeting with children in mediation practice than did all other groups. Mediators in the social work group spent less overall time addressing financial issues than did those in the law and mental health groups. Other differences between the law group and the "other" group were found for professional identity, percent of clients that are Caucasian, and type of mediation practiced. Out of the 30 items mediators addressed on beliefs and issues in the field, group differences were found for only three items. The law group reported less agreement than did those in the "other" group regarding the belief that mediators should be neutral and that children should be included in mediation. Also, in beliefs about the importance of factors influencing positive child outcomes, the law group assigned less importance to shared parent agreements than did those in the "other" group. Although those affiliated with law appear to be different from all other groups on the majority of questions regarding practice characteristics, such differences were not found for items assessing practice beliefs and issues. This may suggest that, in terms of beliefs and issues, mediators regardless of their professional affiliation have similar beliefs and issues regarding mediation practice. Moreover, most mediators reported using structured negotiation predominantly.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,169
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,320

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,258
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle