Challenges Facing Mediation as a Means of Court-Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Ashanti Region of Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2012-2016, the number of cases referred to CCADR for mediation was 14,900. And out of these cases, 5,789 were successfully resolved to represent 38%. The total number of mediated cases pending were 9,111, representing 62%. Though there seems to be an improvement in terms of a decrease in pending cases, the number of pending cases leaves much to be desired. Premising on the above statistics, it has been noted that 9,111 ADR cases were pending in CCADR. Meanwhile, mediation under the CCADR program is known to be faster, affordable, and to reduce the overloaded courts' dockets. This has boosted the interest, trust, and confidence people had in mediation, and this has resulted in the increasing number of cases referred to ADR for mediation. However, the system, which was instituted to reduce overloaded courts' dockets, is bedeviled with challenges. The study seeks to explore the challenges confronting mediation as a means of ADR approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".