Application of Mediation in Resolving Elderly Family Issues in Malaysia: Lessons from Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaysia is expected to be an ageing country by 2030 when 15% of her populace will be in the category of the elderly. The elderly will face various issues and challenges, such as finance along with abuse and neglect. Generally, like in other disputes, the legal mechanism is the resort for resolution. However, litigation is less preferred in this type of cases as it does not address the emotional distress suffered by the parties involved. As such, litigation is not a suitable method as it may break the relationship between the parties. Conversely, mediation, a non-adjudicative dispute resolution mechanism, is considered a potential method of dispute settlement since it is effective in addressing the issues in a family conflict involving the elderly. Due to its effectiveness, the application of mediation as a means of resolving disputes has gained global attention. Considering its effectiveness, some countries, such as Australia and Canada, apply mediation in resolving family issues involving the elderly. The use of mediation in family disputes is not new in Malaysia, however, it is yet to be applied in elderly family disputes. The objective of this article is to explore the scope of the application of mediation in elderly family issues. As such, this study adopts the qualitative approach of research where primary and secondary sources of data were gleaned from various statutes as well as existing literature, respectively. In order to underline the potential of mediation in dispute resolution, the experiences of Australia and Canada have been shared in this article. The finding indicates that due to its intrinsic excellence and usefulness, mediation can excel in resolving the disputes related to the elderly. Therefore, the paper recommends embracing mediation as a feasible dispute settlement mechanism involving the elderly in a family setting in Malaysia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".