Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’importance quantitative des conflits engendres par les ruptures familiales, a amene les professionnels de la justice, magistrats et > a envisager d'autres moyens pour resoudre le contentieux familial. La mediation familiale est un processus amiable, confidentiel, exerce sous l'egide d'un tiers neutre et qualifie qui a pour ambition d'aider les parties en conflit a trouver les elements d'un accord durable. Le processus amiable s'inscrit dans l'evolution du droit de la famille et plus particulierement du droit du divorce qui accorde une large place a l'autonomie des volontes. L’incitation des couples en instance de rupture a elaborer des accords figure dans le droit substantiel comme dans le droit judiciaire. La loi du 8 fevrier 1993 offre aux juges aux affaires familiales un cadre juridique de nature a ameliorer le traitement judiciaire du contentieux familial. Tous les professionnels du conflit familial, juristes ou non juristes, ayant recu une formation adaptee ont vocation a exercer la mediation, methode specifique d'intervention, basee sur des connaissances dans le domaine du droit et de la psychologie. Dans l'interet de la protection des justiciables, il conviendrait de l'integrer specifiquement dans le droit, par voie legislative. A cette fin, il serait souhaitable de rendre obligatoire un preliminaire de mediation, sous forme d'information obligatoire, a l'instar du droit canadien. L’association des plaideurs au processus judiciaire est l'idee forte qui domine les propositions de reforme de la justice civile. La mediation qui ne prendra pas en charge tous les conflits familiaux, devrait neanmoins contribuer a ameliorer le fonctionnement de la justice familiale.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".