Hearing the Voices of Children in Alberta Family Proceedings: The Role of Children's Lawyers and Judicial Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survey reported on in this report was conducted in conjunction with a presentation on the voice of the child delivered to members of the Child Welfare section of the Canadian Bar Association – Alberta chapter on May 3, 2012 in Calgary. The session was also available via web-cast to CBA members in Edmonton. An invitation to attend the session was e-mailed to CBA Child Welfare section members during the week of March 26, 2012. This invitation also included a request to members that they complete a web-based Survey of Lawyers about Children’s Participation in Family Disputes by April 20, 2012 and informed members that highlights of the survey results would be presented at the May 3rd session. The invitation contained a link to the survey. During the week of April 16, 2012, a reminder e-mail about the survey was sent to members of the Child Welfare section. The survey contained background questions regarding respondents’ experience in the family law area in general, as well as their experience with representing children in both custody and access and child welfare proceedings. Lawyers who had experience representing children were asked about the characteristics of their meetings with child clients and the type of approach they take to child representation. Participants were also asked about their experiences with and opinions of judicial interviews with children. Other issues explored included whether lawyers tell their child clients the different ways their views can be shared with the court in family cases, at what ages they think it is appropriate for judges to interview children in custody and access and child welfare proceedings, and whether they think it is appropriate for children to testify in open court. The May 3, 2012 session was attended by approximately 65 legal and 20 mental health professionals in Calgary, with an additional 20 viewing the presentation by webcast in Edmonton. A total of 29 surveys were completed by legal professionals. It should be noted that this relatively small sample size precludes generalization of participants’ responses to all family law professionals in Alberta.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".