Mediation in Guardianship Proceedings for the Elderly: An Australian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognition of the benefits that mediation offers to litigants andto the court and tribunal systems has led to formal recognitionand institutionalization of the process in Australia, Canada, theUSA and many other countries. In many instances, these benefitsinclude flexibility of process, informality, a more conciliatoryapproach to dispute resolution and reduced costs to parties.Some of these benefits, when compared to more traditional andadversarial court processes, have also flowed from the introductionof tribunals in many jurisdictions, including guardianship.Guardianship proceedings in Australia are by tribunals, notcourts, and they use flexible procedures, are generally timely, informal,non-adversial and rarely involve extensive legal costs. Inapplications made pursuant to guardianship legislation in Australia,guardianship tribunals are required to consider the wishesof the person about whom a guardianship application is made,find the outcome that is the least restrictive of that person’s freedomof decision or action and make decisions that are in the bestinterests of that person. In this tribunal environment a numberof questions arise regarding the use of mediation in guardianshipproceedings. Firstly, if the process is already efficacious andinexpensive, do the usual inducements for using mediation arise?Secondly, effective mediation requires that one party is not at asignificant disadvantage to another during the mediation process.What measures, if any, are in place to ensure that an elderlyperson with a disability is able to participate in mediation in ameaningful way? Thirdly, given the legislative principles to beapplied by guardianship tribunals once an application is beforethem, is it ever appropriate that an application be resolved byconsensus between the parties and if so, when? This article addressesthese questions and other issues that need to be addressed ifmediation is to play a larger role in resolving guardianship issues.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".