Making Long-Distance Parents Pay Up: International child-support enforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I-wk -yhether a product of the % f I globalization of trade and T T commerce, military ser vice, immigration, or recreational travel, international custody and sup port-enforcement cases are becom ing more commonplace. To accom modate their resolution, the United States has become a member of international judicial assistance conventions for the prevention of child abduction by parents, service of process, obtaining evidence, and legalization of documents. Although not always perfect in their applications, these conventions facil itate enforcement of custody and access orders in member foreign jurisdictions. The United States has been an active participant in the Hague Conference on Private International Law Special Commissions, convened in 1995 and 1999 to study existing support conventions with a view toward improving them and attract ing new members. However, the U.S. has not acceded to any of these sup port conventions and in lieu thereof is pursuing bilateral arrangements. Welfare reform legislation in 1996 authorized the U.S. Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), to enter into child support establishment and enforce ment arrangements with foreign countries. Pub. L. No. 104-193, ? 371; 42 U.S.C. ? 659A. At this writ ing, the U.S. has arrangements with the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, Czech Republic, Ireland, Poland, and the Slovak Republic. An agreement with Portugal will come into effect 30 days after the Depart ment of receives a diplomatic note advising that Portugal has enact ed domestic legislation implement ing the arrangement. According to Gloria F. DeHart, attorney adviser to the Department of and chief negotiator of fed eral child-support arrangements, Australia, the Netherlands, and Norway should soon be foreign re ciprocating countries. These arrange ments include child and spousal sup port, although the latter is expressly left at the state support enforcement agency's option. As of April 1, 1998, all states have adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) as modified on July 18, 1996, by the National Conference of Com missioners on Uniform Laws. The act defines State to include a
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.001 |
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".