MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008293831

Beyond the Courtroom Door: Exploring the Feasibility of Child Protection Mediation in Ireland

2021· dissertation· en· W7008293831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIrish Research Council
KeywordsChild protectionMediationFamily mediationAlternative dispute resolutionLegislatureIrishWelfareDispute resolution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the Irish child protection and welfare system has witnessed an unprecedented level of increase in legislative and policy development. However, one area that remains relatively unexplored in Ireland is the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, in child protection proceedings. By contrast, in other jurisdictions, such as in the United States of America and Canada, the incorporation of mediation within the child protection system has increasingly been advocated as a genuine alternative to wholly adversarial proceedings. Child protection mediation can provide parties with the opportunity to improve family communication, reduce high levels of conflict, avoid excessive litigation and reach a personalised agreement in the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, in Ireland, child protection mediation has not heretofore been fully explored or researched and a determination of its value in the protection of child safety and welfare has not been reached. Therefore, building on existing research regarding alternative dispute resolution processes, this thesis set out to explore the feasibility of child protection mediation in Ireland and the extent to which is could aid child safety and welfare. The research adopted a triangulated research methodology approach through the use of surveys, semi-structured interviews and structured observations. The thesis analysed data from three research phases: Phase 1 examined child protection mediation with national stakeholders and the Irish judiciary; Phase 2 examined systems operating in certain jurisdictions of the United States of America and Canada, in which child protection mediation is increasingly recognised as an invaluable mechanism; and Phase 3 determined the extent to which alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are currently being used in child welfare and protection disputes in Ireland. The key finding from the study was that the implementation of child protection mediation in Ireland could aid child welfare and improve the quality of decision-making in child protection cases. However, this thesis is not advocating that child protection mediation should be used in all child protection cases and, therefore, it should not be seen as a panacea. Rather, this thesis presents the reasoned, evidence-based argument for considering the use of mediation, in certain aspects of child protection proceedings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.024
Scholarly communication0.0260.013
Open science0.0070.021
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology)Same topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207