A Qualitative Synthesis of Children’s Participation in Custody Disputes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This qualitative synthesis explores the voices of children in the context of child custody disputes over the last 20 years. The purpose was to (1) systematically retrieve qualitative studies to explore children’s views and preferences in the context of decision making postseparation and divorce and (2) explore how children’s voices are being heard or not. Method: Qualitative studies were identified through a systematic retrieval process using an inclusion and exclusion criteria. A meta-ethnographic approach was used for the qualitative synthesis of included studies. Results: Thirty-five qualitative studies were included in the final analysis, involving 1,325 children from 11 countries. Conclusions: Findings reveal that children generally want to be engaged in the decision-making process regarding custody and access, even if they are not making the final decisions. Implications for social work practice and policy are discussed, including providing space for children’s voices within the context of this work.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it