The Complexity of Families Involved in High-Conflict Disputes: A Postseparation Ecological Transactional Framework
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
The use of the term ‘high conflict’ to describe a wide range of family dynamics after separation and divorce has increased significantly over the years. At the moment, no consensus on the definition of high conflict exists. Lack of definitional clarity hinders the ability for legal and mental health professionals to assess, identify, and effectively intervene with this population. Based on a rapid evidence assessment of 65 empirically based social science studies relevant to high conflict, this article positions high-conflict separation and divorce using an ecological transactional model to better understand risk factors and indicators associated with these families. Authors propose a more comprehensive definition that captures the complexity and interactions of various risk factors and indicators on multiple levels. Positioning high-conflict families using an ecological model identifies several points of intervention professionals can use and the fundamental need for collaboration among stakeholders for effective intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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