La oposición al retorno del menor secuestrado: movimientos en Bruselas y La Haya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adequacy of the solutions foreseen in the otherwise successful Hague Convention 1980 onchild abduction has been increasingly questioned. This has been particularly so in relation to abductionslinked to domestic violence. Criticisms have also been relevant in relation to the EU rules on childabduction. In this context, both the Hague Conference and the European Union have undertaken a revisionof these rules. The former has put forward a Draft Guide to good practice on Article 13(1)(b) on theassumption that there is no need to review the rule but to foster its proper application. The proposal for aBrussels II Regulation Recast EU, on the other hand, includes a thorough reform of the Regulation inrelation to child abduction. Both texts aim at securing the return of the child by means of the adoption ofprotective measures. This article addresses the solutions proposed in both documents in the light of theaims they pursue in order to evaluate their significance and the reciprocal impact they may have.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".