Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Australia we call it "Mediation", the French say "la mediation", and the Germans "die Mediation". The term is global, stemming from the Latin, mediatio'; the process universal, its inherent flexibility transcending historical and national legal norms and systemic differences. Indeed, forms of mediation can be traced back to sources in ancient Greece, the Bible, traditional communities in Asia and Africa, and to the fourteenth Century English 'Mediators of Questions'. Mediation, however, does not exist in a vacuum. It operates against a backdrop of national dispute management culture and institutional rules and regulations. Accordingly, it is nothing less than misleading to consider mediation as a universal process in isolation. Context determines how mediation is absorbed and applied by mediators, dispute managements professionals such as lawyers, and by clients. Context defines mediation and has a direct impact on how it is practised. National legal contexts reveal historically embedded systemic differences that can provide insights into the reasons behind the rapid expansion of mediation in common law jurisdictions, and the comparatively hesitant development of mediation in civil law jurisdictions. In this paper I consider the systemic patterns and trends in the mediation movements of common law and civil law jurisdictions, namely, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, South Africa, Switzerland, U.S.A. and Yugoslavia. The ideas and concepts introduced in this paper are drawn from the wealth of data and critical analysis contained in the collection of national reports on mediation presented to the XVIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law at The University of Queensland, Brisbane in July 2002. Accordingly, it is not the aim of this essay to describe or summarise the role of mediation in each of the aforementioned countries. This task has been undertaken with a great deal more expertise than I could claim by the national rapporteurs in their submissions to the Congress. Their national reports are due to be published by the Otto-Schmidt Verlag in Germany in late 2002.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".