MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179600380 · doi:10.5771/9783748926702

Das verfassungsrechtliche Dogma der Zweielternschaft

2021· book· en· W3179600380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sinje Kallikat

Bibliographic record

VenueNomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooks · 2021
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Health Sciences Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeGermanLegislationPerspective (graphical)LawConstitutional courtPolitical scienceConstitutional lawDual (grammatical number)SociologyFamily lawHistoryPhilosophyConstitutionArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How many parents can a child have? According to the German Federal Constitutional Court, „subjects of parental rights for a child […] may only be one mother and one father.“ The author reconstructs and examines the normative and empirical premises underlying the constitutional dogma of dual-parenthood, in particular from a sociological and comparative law perspective (with the law on multi-parenting in British Columbia, Canada). Thereby, she explores the constitutional framework for family law legislation in Germany.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG eBooksSame topicMedical and Health Sciences ResearchFrench-language works237,207