MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964942449 · doi:10.1300/j190v03n02_04

Is “Best Interests” a Solution to Filling Potholes in Child Custody Planning?

2006· article· en· W1964942449 on OpenAlexaff
Margo Anne Kushner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Custody · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild custodyBest interestsBest practiceEthnographyWork (physics)SociologyLawPsychologyCriminologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The role of the child custody evaluator and the principle of “best interests” have been well contemplated in the literature. This article suggests that the “best interest principle” serves the purpose of providing fill for gaps in the court systems engaged in the work of child custody planning. Using sociologist Dorothy Smith's research approach, Institutional Ethnography, the writer unearths the purpose of these potholes using a concept Smith coined as “Ruling Relations.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child CustodySame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207