MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410095300 · doi:10.18372/2307-9061.74.19901

THE PRINCIPLE OF GENDER EQUALITY UNDER FAMILY LAW: EXPERIENCE OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND UKRAINE

2025· article· en· W4410095300 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khrystyna Kmetyk

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific works of National Aviation University Series Law Journal Air and Space Law · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender equalityFamily lawLawPolitical scienceGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the article is to study the principle of gender equality in family law, specifically the experience of foreign countries and its impact on the development of family legal relations in Ukraine. The focus is on the importance of ensuring the equal rights and opportunities for women and men in the context of family legislation, as well as the challenges that arise when implementing the gender equality. Research methods: the article uses a comparative-legal method to analyse international experience in family law and the principles of gender equality. It also applies methods of analysing legislative acts and international agreements related to gender equality to examine how different countries implement this principle in their legal environment. Results: the article points on the importance of implementing the principle of gender equality in family law to achieve social justice and sustainable development of society. An analysis of foreign legislations (France, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, etc.) demonstrates various approaches to ensuring the equal rights for women and men in family relations, including the equality in marriage, the equal parental rights and rights to alimony. In Ukraine, there is also a gradual integration of European standards, although there are certain problems, including the cultural and social stereotypes that may complicate this process. Discussion: the article highlights that, although Ukraine has a legal framework guaranteeing gender equality, its implementation in practice faces barriers such as stereotypes and limited access to legal information. Furthermore, it emphasizes a need to adapt national legislation to modern requirements regarding gender equality and a necessity to consider cultural and social features that may influence the formation of gender roles in the family. The article also suggests developing the concept for the development of Ukraine’s family legislation based on the analysis of international experience and internal trends.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific works of National Aviation University Series Law Journal Air and Space LawSame topicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawFrench-language works237,207