Bibliographic record
Abstract
Originally published in 1986, reissued here with a new preface, this study of the origins and early development of family conciliation services in Britain outlines their philosophy, methods of work and reported results, illustrated with case examples. The examples demonstrate that disputes between separating and divorcing couples involve complex personal and family problems as well as legal ones, and that the practice of conciliation needed to be set in the context of current changes in family law and court procedures. At the time many solicitors and courts were adopting a settlement-seeking approach in matrimonial cases rather than a sharply adversarial one, and the complementary roles of solicitors and conciliators gave rise to dilemmas in practice, as well as offering potential advantages. This book draws a parallel between the work of ACAS in industrial disputes and the similar approach of family conciliation services, but points out that there are also major differences. It also shows how the experience of conciliation practice gained in other countries throws some useful light on the questions being raised in Britain. Research findings from Australia, Canada and the United States are used in discussing the future of conciliation in the short and longer term, and in looking at the possible development of alternative methods of resolving disputes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".