Achieving Cultural Normalisation of Mediation in Low Value Civil Justice: Lessons from British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume provides a contemporary and comprehensive critical analysis of the role and function of mediation within modern civil justice systems and its wider impact on access to justice, with a combined focus on how increasing digitisation of civil justice processes presents both challenges and opportunities for mediation’s formal inclusion. It brings together leading international scholars in the field of civil dispute resolution from a number of common and civil law jurisdictions, applying a range of methodologies to produce a variety of different perspectives on key issues such as whether mediation should form such an important part of the justice systems, whether litigants should be compelled to engage with mediation, what impact mediation has on litigants’ perceptions of justice, the role of mediators, the role of mediation within an increasingly digitized civil justice system, whether mediation should be regulated, the impact of the Singapore Mediation Convention on the practice and mediation and the role of national courts, the impact of the EU Mediation Directive, and whether it is appropriate for policy makers and the courts to promote mediation over other forms of dispute resolution.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".