Through the Looking Glass: Mediator Conceptions of Philosophy, Process and Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While a number of civil reforms using mediation emerged across Canada in recent years, of particular interest is the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program Mediation Program that was first piloted in 1999, deemed successful and then made a permanent feature of the Rules of Civil Procedure in 2001. This article suggests that before we can evaluate the outcomes of mandatory mediation, we must first look more closely at the process being implemented by the mediators in this context. With that in mind, this article considers the ways in which the mediators themselves perceive of the mediation process. It reports on a qualitative study that examined the nature of mediator views on the topics of, inter alia, settlement orientation and mediator power. This article advances the claim that mediator power Is, in fact, far greater than that held by the disputants or their advocates. This article suggests that this power, in the context of a mandatory mediation scheme, creates mediator self-interest in achieving high rates of settlement, regardless of whether or not settlement is in the best interests of the disputants in every situation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".