MEDIATION IN FAMILY CASES ACROSS THE EU AND BEYOND. IS A NEW HARMONIZED APPROACH TO EUROPE’S POLICY FOR SOLVING FAMILY CONFLICTS NEEDED?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to address the question of the need for revising the existing EU policy in the field of family mediation. The author argues there is a necessity for a single EU methodology for managing national and cross-border family disputes through their referral to mediation, which will serve as the basis for the revision of the EU policy in the field of family mediation and will trigger a discussion for the adoption of a new Directive on the subject. This is grounded in the increase in divorce rates in the EU according to the European Parliament, the growing mobility of spouses and the spread of cross- cultural families, all of which lead to a rising number of family disputes occasionally caught between various jurisdictions and applicable laws. Possible revisions aim to set up a unified modus operandi through which national and transnational family disputes are managed across the EU through their referral to mediation, to propose clear guidelines for child inclusion in the mediation process following the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), to establish standards for mandatory family mediation for those countries who opt-in for such a model and the professional qualifications for EU family mediators. Such an idea is ambitious in its pursuit to set unified standards on the manner through which family mediation is practiced in the EU, how children are integrated as part of the process, and what unified requirements apply to EU family mediators. The author suggests that the ultimate impact of the above would be to open the discussion for EU policymakers to consider setting up a uniform methodology for family mediation, outlining the specific processes for mandatory family mediation for Member States opting-in in a model and revising the EU mediation policy in the field of family justice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".