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
There is increasing use of Views of the Child Reports as a means of involving children in the resolution of parenting disputes in Canada, but there are significant differences in how these Reports are prepared. This article reports on a study of an Ontario pilot project which provided non-evaluative reports for parenting disputes prepared by social workers based on two interviews with each child about the child’s perspectives and preferences; children were offered confidentiality and the opportunity to review and edit the Report. The majority of professionals and parents found these Reports were helpful for the resolution of the cases, and almost half of the cases settled shortly after preparation of the Report. Most significantly, the children all stated that they appreciated the opportunity to share their views. However, some parents and their lawyers raised concerns that these Reports may not be appropriate for certain cases. We conclude that these Reports are a valuable addition to the ‘family justice toolbox’. We make suggestions for good practices and policy reforms to encourage their appropriate use.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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