MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887150728 · doi:10.1017/9781780688480

Adults and Children in Postmodern Societies: A Comparative Law and Multidisciplinary Handbook

2019· book· en· W2887150728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jehanne Sosson, Geoffrey Willems, Gwendoline Motte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Family lawLawPolitical scienceDemocracyConstitutional courtAutonomyPostmodernismSociologyGeographyConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults and Children in Postmodern Societies provides a critical analysis of the different ways in which the law can recognise and protect relationships between adults and children in postmodern societies which are characterised by increas-ingly diverse family configurations. The book focuses of six fundamental ques-tions: * How does the law deal with the changes occurring in what is still re-ferred to as the `traditional' family, such as for example anonymous childbirth, paternity disputes, shared custody? * How does the law recognise and protect families conceived with help of assisted reproduction techniques, such as IVF, surrogacy, anonymous or non-anonymous gamete donation? * How does the law recognise and protect families bound by de facto so-cial or emotional ties, particularly in context of step-parents and step-children or foster families? * Which relationships between adults and children should be recognised and protected by law? Should there be restrictions based on couple sta-tus, gender or number? * If relationships between adults and children should be protected, which legal tools should be used: legal rules, judicial discretion or contractual freedom? * Which common analytical framework could be used to understand - and face - the legal challenges raised by the transformations of family relationships? These questions are addressed in-depth by an international team of distin-guished family law experts of 19 different jurisdictions (Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Democratic Republic of the Congo, England and Wales, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, the Nether-lands, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and the USA), covering the current state of affairs, foreseeable legal developments and thought-provoking reflections. The legal perspective of the national reports is com-plemented by interdisciplinary perspectives from experts in history, anthro-pology, psychology and philosophy, making this book a unique and essen-tial source for anyone working in the field.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207