A School for Self-Represented Litigants: A People-Centred Approach to Access to Justice in Family Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in self-represented family law litigants. This increase permeates courts in a variety of jurisdictions. It is also clear that self-represented litigants (SRLs) disproportionately suffer more negative outcomes than represented parties. Therefore, the question now is what the responses are and should be to this phenomenon. Like many other facets of access to justice, the solutions in the family law context must be both diverse and tailored to the actual needs of those representing themselves in family law courts. This requires understanding the experiences and challenges faced by family law SRLs and ensuring that SRLs participate in the design of any responses developed. Such an endeavour is consistent with a people-centred approach to access to justice in which those directly impacted by the justice system are centred in the identification and development of viable solutions. One such project was the School for Family Litigants, an access to justice initiative designed by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project to help SRLs participating in family law litigation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".