International adoption: lex adoptio and the plurality of connecting factors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the substantive law and conflict of laws law of such countries as Austria, Venezuela, Germany, Dominican Republic, Iceland, Spain, Canada (Quebec), Norway, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, as well as bilateral agreements on legal aid, case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which demonstrates the presence general principles of law, as well as the principle of protecting the weaker party to the legal relationship, the principle of observance of best interests of a child established by the universal multilateral international agreements: Convention on Human Rights of 1950, Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The author examines the relevant issues of the conflict of laws regarding the manifestation of the conflict of jurisdictions, plurality of connecting factors in regulation of a set of private law relations associated with international adoption. The result of the conducted research consists in formulation of a special statute of adoption (lex adoptio), analysis of its legal nature and scope. In the context of examination of the procedure for establishing international adoption, the author identifies the problem of dépeçage (different issues within a single case are governed by the laws of different jurisdictions). A classification is provided to the combinations of plurality of connecting factors established by the legislation of foreign countries, as well as multilateral international agreement – the Inter-American Convention on Conflict of Laws Concerning the Adoption of Minors of 1984).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it