On Classification of Custody Right as to Ne Exeat Right for Children and the First Custody Case in US Supreme Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classification of custody right is the key to cross-border abduction of children. Only the visitation right can't be the full custody right. Whether one parent with visitation right and ne ex- eat right of her or his children enjoys custody right didn't be explicitly stated in the international con- vention. As regarding it,most scholars hold a pos- itive opinion,but some scholars express dissent. The United Kingdom court representing the majori- ty of the courts held a positive attitude,but the Canadian court as the representative of minority opposed. Before Abbott v. Abbott,there were dif- ferent opinions in U. S. Federal Circuit Courts. The U. S. Supreme Court in the Abbott case ex- pressed the opinion of the majority for the first time,thus unifying the U. S. position. The deci- sion not only largely reflected the international community's basic attitude to ne exeat right,but also reflected the importance of correct under- standing of custody in the context of the interna- tional convention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".