Resolution of Marital Disputes and Domestic Violence in Nigeria: The Role of Alternative and Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Marital unions that are normally expected to be blissful and ever-lasting are sometimes riddled with all manner of disputes often resulting in domestic violence. This is because of the inevitability of disputes in human interactions including marital unions. Sometimes, for cultural and religious reasons, victims of domestic violence in marital disputes are warned against reporting the violence to ensure marriage sustainability, marital privacy as well as to protect the welfare of the children of the marriage among other reasons. This approach seems to be ineffective as endurance of domestic violence over time often results in physical injuries, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and even death in some extreme cases. On the other hand, couples drag one another to different courts to seek legal redress and resolve marital disputes. Again, this approach does not seem to solve the problem. The court-based justice system has not proven to be a better forum of resolving connubial disputes that require confidential, swift, non-combative and effective dispute resolution mechanism. Hence, this article explores the possibility of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to solve marital disputes in Nigeria. It adopts the doctrinal research methodology to examine the role that alternative and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms could play in the amicable resolution of marital disputes and domestic violence cases. The article argues that alternative and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms could be more veritable and effective means of resolving matrimonial discords and domestic violence in Nigeria.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".