MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION

2004· article· en· W1999389045 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanne Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Court Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Bar AssociationUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Set (abstract data type)Process (computing)WelfarePsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Judicial Dispute Resolution or JDR is a pre‐trial settlement process involving judges as settlement facilitators. In October 2000 the Family and Youth Court in Edmonton, Alberta launched a yearlong JDR pilot project to determine whether JDR would help in resolving family and child welfare matters before the court. The project was very successful and has become a permanent program in Edmonton. This article explains how the Edmonton JDR polit project was set up and evaluated as well as its success as a permanent program. The article describes the JDR process in detail and discusses the current statistics from the program. The design and development of the new JDR Centre in the Edmonton courthouse is also addressed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.346 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Court ReviewSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207