MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943076830

Views of Ontario Lawyers on Family Litigants Without Representation

2012· article· en· W2943076830 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)SociologyEpistemologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing number of family litigants without legal representation poses significant challenges for lawyers, litigants and the justice system. This paper reports on a survey of 335 Ontario family lawyers about their experiences with litigants without legal representation and related access to justice issues. These lawyers report an increase in the number of family litigants without lawyers. They attribute this increase principally to lack of eligibility for legal aid and an inability to afford counsel, but also recognize such factors as a perception that lawyers increase the expense and complexity of resolving cases, and litigants’ belief that they can adequately represent themselves. Participants also recognized that some litigants have a desire to personally confront a former partner. Overall, lawyers report that cases involving litigants without representation take longer and are more costly for their clients to resolve; they also report worse outcomes for many of those without lawyers.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.186 · 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