The Family Resolutions Specialty Court (<scp>FRSC</scp>): An Evidence‐Informed Court‐Based Innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at how four distinct programs contributed to the family law evidence‐base supporting the desirability, effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of family dispute resolution programs. The central program discussed is the Family Resolutions Specialty Court (FRSC), an alternative court‐based means of settling child‐related legal disputes. FRSC is based on research evidence, but it also incorporates clinical experience and wisdom along with empirical evidence. Evidence from similar models informed the development of the program, which was then shaped by a community process to reflect local laws, procedures and values. This maximized the potential for its acceptance in the community and its sustainability. Initial results demonstrate that parents and practitioners are highly satisfied with the program, and that parents reported better coparenting and parent–child relationships. To be effective, the parents had to be held accountable to each other and the court process. A process evaluation (research about the program) led to programmatic and procedural changes to serve the needs of parents in high conflict or with other special needs. FRSC provides a prime example of how to utilize science‐based evidence to adapt evidence‐informed programs to a local community in which it can thrive.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".