MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211256297 · doi:10.1111/jols.12349

Child welfare, Indigenous parents, and judicial mediation

2022· article· en· W4211256297 on OpenAlex
Robert Leckey

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousMediationEconomic JusticeWelfarePolitical scienceAccommodationTransformative mediationState (computer science)LawSociologyAlternative dispute resolutionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Can judicial mediation within a settler state's justice system improve the experience of dealing with child welfare services for Indigenous parents? Interviews with social workers, lawyers, and judges in the Canadian province of Quebec yield little basis for optimism. Adapting judicial mediation will not suffice to decolonize dispute resolution between Indigenous individuals and the state. Mediation fits uneasily with the severe power disparity in this setting. Moreover, the cautious nature of participants’ recommendations signals the limited adaptive capacity of the settler state's system of civil justice. The recommendations exemplify relatively superficial accommodation, rather than deep engagement with legal pluralism and Indigenous difference. Constraints on the state system's ability to adapt are both legal and cultural. This study contributes to literatures on Indigenous and colonial legal cultures in relation to child welfare, on access to justice for Indigenous peoples, and on mediation in Canada and elsewhere.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.266 · 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