Labelling & Intervening in Parental Alienation Cases: A Review of Canadian Court Decisions 2010-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental alienation was examined using 101 retrospective high-conflict Canadian custody court cases between 2010 and 2012. Previous literature in the debate about whether this phenomenon should be considered a formal diagnosis or syndrome, defining behaviours of parental alienation, the impact on children, the relationship between domestic violence and alienation and use of therapeutic interventions were the major research questions. Findings demonstrate only 2% of judges used the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Parents were likely to make a negative comment about the alienated parent in 90% of cases, while a child was likely to speak negatively of the alienated parent in 52% of cases. There was also a significant relationship between a judge making a finding of parental alienation and mandating counselling for the alienating parent. Implications of the study were discussed in terms of helping inform mental health professionals and court officials to assist in keeping the best interests of the child a priority in making informative decisions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".