MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7117124360 · doi:10.1111/fcre.70035

New footprints on an old trail

2025· article· en· W7117124360 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Saini

Notice bibliographique

RevueFamily Court Review · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHonorField (mathematics)Family lawPublishingMental healthLearning disability

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I am thrilled to join Family Court Review (FCR) as the new Social Science Editor. I am honored and profoundly privileged to take on this prestigious role within the family law community. I approach this opportunity with an earnest appreciation for those who have contributed to the journal's history over the past sixty-plus years. I have tremendous respect for FCR's longstanding tradition of connecting scholarship, law, and mental health practice to support and serve children and families engaged in family law matters. The articles published in FCR have been instrumental to my own learning journey over the past two decades. My access to FCR through my AFCC membership has been one of the most significant benefits. I follow in the footsteps of giants in the field and an exceptional group of Social Science Editors whose collective wisdom has helped shape FCR into a leading voice in family law. From the early days of collaboration between scholars and jurists to the most recent tenure of Dr. Marsha Kline Pruett, each editor has brought unique insights and energy. Dr. Kline Pruett's leadership, intellectual curiosity, and inclusive approach have enhanced the journal's influence and reputation. Under her guidance as Social Science Editor, FCR has strengthened its interdisciplinary perspective, expanded its global reach, and remained unwavering in addressing the most challenging and divisive issues facing family law practitioners. It is an honor to carry on this legacy and continue the conversations she so skillfully fostered. FCR has always been distinguished by its dedication to embracing complexity rather than sidestepping it. The journal has never aimed to provide simple answers. Instead, it serves as a platform for rigorous investigation, critical reflection, and sincere collaborative discussions about the changing intersections of family, law, and society. In my work, situated at the intersection of social science research, social work, and family law, I have observed that real progress depends on collaboration across boundaries. It involves curiosity about what exists beyond one's own discipline. My editorial philosophy is guided by four key principles: rigor, relevance, inclusion, and integrity. While only a small portion of FCR articles are empirical studies, I believe that all manuscripts, whether conceptual, policy-oriented, or practice-focused, must demonstrate clarity, coherence, and grounding in the best available evidence, practice wisdom, and child-centred approaches. I am dedicated to increasing the diversity of voices and perspectives in FCR by mentoring emerging scholars, promoting interdisciplinary and international contributions, and ensuring that both conceptual and practice-oriented work meet the same standards of rigor and integrity as empirical research. My approach also emphasizes a purposeful approach that prioritizes social science evidence, identifies and prevents advocacy bias, and ensures that scholarship remains connected to the realities of the children and families we serve. As we look ahead, the challenges facing our field continue to expand in scope and complexity, including confronting and reducing polarization, supporting the authentic inclusion of children's voices, prioritizing safety-first approaches for children and families, screening and addressing family violence, enhancing responses in cases of parent–child contact problems, and increasing artificial intelligence literacy and the ethical use of technology. These are not isolated issues. They are interconnected, global, and urgent. In my role, I will also help the Editor-in-Chief identify and develop special problems, such as trauma-informed courts, international perspectives on co-parenting, and evaluations of court-involved programs. I am eager to work with our esteemed Editor-in-Chief, Barbara Babb, the AFCC leadership, Hofstra's Center for Children, Families, and the Law, and the exceptional student editorial team to maintain efficient workflows and ensure timely, high-quality publication. FCR is part of the larger AFCC community. I am most thankful for the incredible leadership of our Executive Director, Bryan Altman, and the Board of Directors. I am most appreciative of your accepting my application and providing me with this remarkable opportunity. To the community of readers, contributors, reviewers, AFCC members and practitioners in the field who support FCR, thank you for your dedication to advancing meaningful dialogue and your commitment to evidence-informed family law practice. Together, we uphold a tradition of rigorous, respectful, and innovative scholarship. I look forward to continuing this journey with you. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed. Michael A. Saini is a Full Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and also holds a cross-appointment as an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. He is the endowed Factor-Inwentash Chair in Law and Social Work and serves as Co-Director of the J.D./M.S.W. program. He is the past president of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). In 2019, he received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award from AFCC, sponsored by the Oregon Family Institute. He is also a two-time recipient of the Meyer Elkin Essay Award from the Family Court Review in 2018 and 2024.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,555
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
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)0,0010,001

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 Opus0,081
Tête enseignante GPT0,449
Écart entre enseignants0,368 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFamily Court ReviewMême sujetLegal Education and Practice InnovationsTravaux en français237 207