MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2214822579 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n1p96

International Discourse on Child Participation in Family Justice

2015· article· en· W2214822579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asmidah Ahmad, Noor Aziah Mohd Awal, Mohd Al Adib Samuri

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Sains Islam Malaysia
KeywordsHarmEconomic JusticePaternalismStatutory lawLawBest interestsValue (mathematics)Political scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family justice has undoubtedly molded in an interesting shape throughout the century. Recent development upholds the sovereignty of children’s right over the traditional paternalistic and maternal preference in deciding matrimonial disputes. Affording right to children to participate in matrimonial proceeding will surely be debatable and bring about further complex issues to the proceeding since children are viewed as vulnerable group who must be protected from any harm. Hence, this article intends to review the international discourse ranging from the children’s right and family justice as undertaken internationally and provides commentary on Malaysian current practice. Results indicated that statutory provisions in Malaysian laws value the wishes of a child only in custody cases but the practice is slightly erratic as distinctive judges have different practices. It is submitted that a comprehensive guideline on judicial procedure are then required to be developed in ensuring that Justice must not only be done; but must be seen to be done to all parties including the children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207