Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the role that paternalism plays \nin the exercise and vindication of the rights of the \nchild. \n \nThis study demonstrates that paternalism plays a \ndetermining role in the exercise and vindication of the \nrights of the child. The study shows that this \npaternalism was originally inherent in judicial lawmaking, \ndeployed as a consequence of the importance of \nparens patriae to the constitutional and administrative \nframework of the State. \n \nThe thesis analyses the judicial role in proceedings \ninvolving the rights of the child in Ireland, England, \nthe United States and to a lesser extent Canada. The \nthesis demonstrates that the judicial role has a dual \nfunction. First, the judge must protect the integrity of \nthe family unit to which a child is born. Second, the \njudge is the protector and vindicator of the child's \nrights. \n \nChapter 1 outlines the rights model and the concept \nof parens patriae. This chapter also constructs the \nwelfare model regulating the relationships between the \nchild, parents and the State. This chapter shows that the \njudiciary have developed the welfare model in which they \nare the dominant actors. In chapter 2 the relevant \nliterature is discussed and analysed. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 \nprove that judicial paternalism plays a determining role \nin proceedings concerned with the exercise and \nvindication of the rights of the child in the health \ncare, education and juvenile justice systems. Chapter 6 \ncontains the conclusions to this study and provides \nsuggestions for reform. \n \nThe main conclusion of the thesis is that an optimal \nmodel of child law must reiterate the concept of parens \npatriae shorn of its inappropriate paternalistic \naccretions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".