Judicial Mediation: From Debates to Renewal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judicial mediation involving a judge acting as a mediator in a court dispute has been implemented in many jurisdictions worldwide as a way to overcome access to justice challenges. This innovation has raised many debates on the changing role of the judge built on either its congruence with or divergence from judicial adjudication. Over the years, these debates have become increasingly stagnant. The evolving vision on access to justice brings an opportunity to draw from the earlier debates and forge a different way forward. This paper argues that a coequality approach to understanding judicial mediation is a better way to design the process in a way that respects the distinctive qualities of mediation and the justice system, and to create a renewed judicial mediation model. Based upon Singapore and Canada's strong commitment to access to justice and long-standing judicial mediation experiences, the paper proposes an "Integrative Judicial Mediation" model.
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 | 0.030 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".