A Survey of Beliefs and Priorities About Access to Justice of Family Law: The Search for A Multidisciplinary Perspective*
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
Within the last decade, the term “access to justice” has grown in popularity among legal commentators, scholars, family justice reformers, government policy makers, and the media. But with all of this new attention, there remains no common understanding or definition of access to justice and its potential implications for children and families in domestic relation courts. The purpose of this cross‐sectional online survey was to explore the meaning of access to justice according to legal, mental health, and dispute resolution professionals in various countries. The sample included 442 respondents (e.g., judges, lawyers, custody evaluators, mediators, family court services, court administrators, parent educators, etc.) from seven countries. Of the total respondents, 398 participants completed the survey (response rate of ninety percent). The majority of participants defined access to justice as the ability of disputants to seek and obtain a remedy through formal (e.g., the courts) or informal (e.g., mediation) institutions and services for resolving disputes. Noteworthy differences were reported, however, between the views of legal and mental health professionals, where the latter most likely viewed access to justice as a legal issue, while the former focused on alternative approaches outside of the legal system to resolve family disputes. Implications for family court reforms are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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