CHALLENGING THE CENTRALIST DOCTRINE IN MEXICAN FAMILY LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVOLUTION OF STATE AUTHORITY OVER CIVIL LAW MATTERS AND ITS IMPACT ON THE REGULATION OF COHABITATION AND DIVORCE
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
This article addresses the need for debate about the concepts of federalism, centralization, decentralization and sovereignty within the context of Mexican comparative and family law. Until recently, private law and family law scholars have generally dismissed the issue of federalism within Mexico, largely because of the belief that Mexico is not “really” federalist given its strong tendency toward political and legal centralism. Despite this preconception —and the fact that Mexico does have a highly centralized federal system— a deeper analysis shows that states and sub-national jurisdictions have played a critical role in shaping the contours of family law and influencing the state-federal relationship. This article argues that the centralist doctrine that so permeates scholarly works on private law in Mexico —if not addressed and revised both for the past and present— risks undermining attempts at understanding legal change and improving Mexican family law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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