Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter traces the trajectory of the principle of the best interests of the child in the Iraqi legal order, analyses its implementation and shows how it is perceived and interpreted in jurisprudence. Generally, the principle of the best interests of the child is not expressly recognised as a general principle in the national legal order. However, it is the foundation of the entire children’s protection policy in Iraq and operates as an underlying consideration. Also, Iraqi Personal Status law makes explicit reference to the child’s best interests as regards custody. This has given courts ample room to interpret and consider the award, loss and revocation of custody on a specific case-by-case basis. The Iraqi Personal Status law regulates custody in one article with nine paragraphs. The principle of the best interests of the child is mentioned on three occasions. Most notably, in 1986, the Iraqi legislature abolished the automatic loss of custody for a mother who remarries and ordered that each case be considered on its own merits. The right to custody is thus not an absolute and discretionary right of any given parent. By putting the child and its best interests in the centre of focus, the judge may noticeably change the order of devolution of custody established by the legislature, awarding custody as is justified by the child’s best interests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.065 |
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".