Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new trend in Collaborative Family Law (CFL) in the United States and Canada raises new questions about theories of justice. CFL achieves many of the goals of a viable theory of justice and its implicit critique of the legal system is a valid one. However, it unnecessarily demonizes law and has yet to explicitly articulate where it fits in terms of its own theory of justice. After considering the claims made by CFL, it is apparent that while some are productive, others are problematic and should be discarded. Specifically, CFL's rejection of factual determinacy may be inappropriate in some cases. The CFL approach has the potential to ignore problems of power imbalance, and may sacrifice just outcomes for the sake of efficiency. The emphasis on relationships and the need for their protection is not always an appropriate approach, and in demonizing law in favor of private ordering, CFL unnecessarily rejects the importance of law as a site for public participation in the creation and defense of norms. CFL is an important step forward in law reform, but if it is to fulfill its potential, it needs to incorporate within its practice a theory of justice that avoids the pitfalls of liberal individualism and allows for the public authorship of norms.
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 | 0.033 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".