Terapinė jurisprudencija – kelias pasitikėjimo teise link. Mediacijos atvejis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the implementation of therapeutic jurisprudence in mediation. Therapeutic jurisprudence is an interdisciplinary field of study that seeks to explore how the negative effects of legislation and the application of law can be reduced and the therapeutic effects enhanced. The judicial process often exacerbates an existing conflict and intensifies the negative experiences caused by the conflict itself. Therefore, the objectives of therapeutic jurisprudence can be achieved through alternative dispute resolution methods, including mediation. The work reveals how aims and principles of mediation implement the ideas of therapeutic jurisprudence and how the use of mediation allows for the achievement of a socially beneficial goal of increasing trust in the legal system. The article provides a comparative analysis of mediation in family cases in Canada and Lithuania and assesses whether the ideas of therapeutic jurisprudence are implemented in Lithuania through the institute of family dispute mediation. The comparative analysis of Lithuanian and Norwegian regulation of mediation in criminal justice shows that that the Norwegian model of victim-offender mediation can serve as a model for the realization of the goals of therapeutic jurisprudence in Lithuania.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".