Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume offers a reconstruction of the developments of family mediation, from its first appearance to the present times, in which we are witnessing its constant evolution. The study ranges from the analysis of the first experiences on the subject, spanning from common law systems (with particular attention to the American, Canadian and English systems) to those of some continental European countries (Spain, France and Germany). A broad examination of the theme is therefore offered, in light of the differences between the various "schools" which have arisen over time. Then, the European perspective is examined, discussing the EU law and the role of the Court of Strasbourg’s jurisprudence and of the sources developed in the Council of Europe, while also paying particular attention to the challenges associated with the application of non-judicial forms of dispute resolution in cases which can be defined as cross-border. Attention is also paid to the role played by the principles for the protection of human rights. In the chapter dedicated to Italy’s legal experience, the core profiles of the matter are extensively examined through a complete and accurate reconstruction of the current law, which is then followed by a series of ideas about the possible implementations for its future and desirable reform.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".