MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414525020 · doi:10.63808/isgr.v1i2.134

Comparative Analysis of Parental Authority Frameworks: Policy Directions for Strengthening Philippine Family Law

2025· article· en· W4414525020 on OpenAlex
Abejuela Armando, Ricamora Maria Sharron, Nuñez Norma, Reynoso Lino

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInclusive School Governance Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatutory lawLegislatureConstitutionSupreme courtFamily lawLegislationGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the legal concept of parental authority in selected countries as a basis for refining provisions within the Philippine Family Law. Guided by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Philippine Family Code, the study examines statutory principles, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and international practices on parental rights and responsibilities. The analysis emphasizes the shared exercise of parental authority, the continued application of the tender-age doctrine, and the necessity for clearer provisions on parental fitness. Comparative insights are drawn from legal systems in Japan, Canada, Norway, the United States, and other jurisdictions to inform policy enhancement. The study concludes with recommendations for legislative amendments that safeguard the welfare of the child while strengthening parental accountability.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.373 · 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