MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W63491074 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1013

Family Arbitration: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

2007· article· en· W63491074 on OpenAlex
Shelley McGill

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationTwo stepComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawMathematicsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RgsuMiLa r~glementation introduite rcemment en Ontario en mati~re d'arbitrage familial repr~sente une rupture importante avec la politique existante sur l'arbitrage.Le nouveau cadre comporte un m&anisme compliqu6 de freins et de contrepoids visant A pr~munir les parties vuln~rables contre des accords pouvant intervenir avant rarbitrage.Il remet en question les principes bien 6tablis en mati~re d'arbitrage que sont 'autonomie des parties, la finalit6, et la confidentialit& Cet article passe en revue les nouvelles exigences en mati~re d'arbitrage familial en vertu de la Loi de 2006 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne des questions familiales et 6tablit une comparaison avec les recommandations de Marion Boyd, ex-procureure g~n~rale de l'Ontario, contenues dans son rapport intitul6 Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion (,, Risolution de conflits dans le droit familial : prottger le choix, promouvoir l'inclusion ,,).Les forces et les faiblesses du nouveau cadre d'arbitrage familial sont discut~es, ainsi que les implications pour les politiques, et la pratique, de l'arbitrage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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