National Paths Towards Private Ordering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the mid-1970s, socio-legal scholars have extensively analysed changes in family law and family justice systems. The recognition of ‘no-fault’ divorce and the rise of undisputed proceedings have changed the nature of judicial intervention in family regulation. The concept of ‘private ordering’, as Mnookin and Kornhauser called it, emphasises the institutionalisation of private decisions in family law. In this chapter, we aim to discuss this proposition through a double lens. First, we argue that the result of these policies of ‘private ordering’ varies according to whether the outcome or the process is taken into account. Settled decisions may not be as private as they seem to be if we observe the process that has led to them, as that has often involved professionals. To obtain a comprehensive approach to ‘private ordering’, we suggest distinguishing between two dimensions: decisions as the outcome of divorce ordering, but also the interactions between ex partners and professionals as the process towards decision. This hypothesis leads us to a second starting point. Although the trend towards ‘private ordering’ is shared by every Western jurisdiction, it has not reached the same level, and does not take the same form in all countries. Different paths have been experienced, depending on national patterns regarding the judicial system and the legal profession as well as public policy and family relations. To study these national paths, this study focuses on two family justice systems: France and Quebec, the French-speaking province of Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".