Family Law Proceedings and the Child's Right to be Heard in <scp>A</scp>ustralia, the <scp>U</scp>nited <scp>K</scp>ingdom, <scp>N</scp>ew <scp>Z</scp>ealand, and <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the child's right to be heard in family law proceedings in four international jurisdictions, comparing laws, practices, and attitudes relating to children's participation. It critiques the methods by which children's views are heard and discusses the significant variations in each country's approach to listening to children. The article discusses each system's strengths and weaknesses in promoting children's right to be heard, reviewing international literature and highlighting recent initiatives to promote children's participation, such as the 2010 United Kingdom guidelines for judges meeting with children. The article concludes that there is little consistency in how children's voices are heard in family law matters internationally. One possible explanation is that each jurisdiction differs in its culture of and attitude toward children's rights. Keypoints Children's views in family law matters Comparative analysis of law and practice in Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada Child's right to be heard
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".