Gli Avvocati e le nuove forme di ADR: il diritto collaborativo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Collaborative Law is a new form of alternative Dispute Resolution, in which the parties and their lawyers commit to resolve the legal dispute without going to Court. The central concept of the collaborative practice, conceived in 1990 by Stuart Webb, a Minnesota family lawyer, is that the legal services provided by counsel are limited to advice regarding the negotiated resolution of the conflict focusing exclusively on developing a consensual outcome. The cornerstone of the collaborative approach is the “collaborative commitment” that requires that lawyers withdraw if the case is not settled. In twenty years, the collaborative law approach has known a great development in U.S.A., Canada and in many European countries. This rapid success of Collaborative law is due to the new role of the lawyers that govern the whole process. Although mediation remains a good dispute resolution method for many cases, it presents some characteristic that make it unacceptable choice for a growing numbers of lawyers. As Stuart Webb wrote: «One of the aspect of mediation that I feel is a weakness is that it basically leaves out input by the lawyer at the early stages». The new collaborative practice reshape the landscape of ADR methods and indicates a change in the legal practice. This article focuses on the concept of collaborative law and the development of the collaborative practices in the United States and in the Canadian Federation. After describing the basic elements of collaborative approach, this essay describes the “Commitment of Participative Procedure”, introduced by the French legislator in 2010 and the “Assisted Negotiation”, introduced by Italian lawmakers in 2014.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".