One Judge for One Family: Differentiated Case Management for Families in Continuing Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the differences between family cases and other types of litigation is essential for an appropriate response to family disputes. Judges have a role in family cases that markedly differs from the traditional judicial role. The authors argue that an effective and accessible family justice system requires pre-trial and post-trial case management by a single judge, an approach to family justice reflected in the slogan: "One judge for one family." Judges should have the necessary knowledge, skills, and training needed to resolve family disputes and to help effect changes in parental behaviours and attitudes, as well as the willingness to collaborate effectively with non"legal professionals. A differentiated approach to the way each family case is managed is required, varying with the nature of the case, the nature and level of the conflict, and the stage of the litigation process. The paper includes consideration of Canadian approaches to judicial case management, including analysis of the small body of reported case law on the reasons for judicial managing and monitoring family cases before and after trial, and on recusal—when to stop case management.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".