Online Dispute Resolution and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Levelling the Playing Field in Disputes Involving Autistic Parties
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
Often, the overall success of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process hinges on the ability of a neutral third party to establish a level playing field supported by a sense of equal bargaining power between disputants. Most forms of ADR, including traditional approaches to mediation and arbitration, are characterized by in-person interactions, where disputants and third parties communicate through a combination of verbal and nonverbal cues. Though many believe that this form of interaction is crucial for effective communication, it may result in significant disadvantages for autistic parties who face difficulties properly discerning the intentions or meaning of these cues.\nThis work examines the potential benefits of implementing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) tools and platforms in dispute resolution processes involving autistic parties. It explores the inherent disadvantages presented by traditional forms of ADR and proposes an alternative approach geared toward the individual needs of parties and the accommodation of cognitive difference. Given the high potential for eased communication presented by computer and internet technologies for autistic disputants, this work posits that an ideal process would be one that effectively incorporates ODR tools and that provides a structured and stable environment for dispute resolution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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