MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7056280304

En jämförelse mellan de obligatoriska informations- och medlingssamtalen i vårdnadsmål i Sverige respektive Norge

2022· other· en· W7056280304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMagnetic Field Sensors Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorwegianLegislationResidenceMediationAction (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both Swedish and Norwegian legislation is characterized by an effort to get parents to reach consensual agreement, in matters of custody, residence and contact. This strive is based on the fact that a consensual solution between the parents, to a greater extent than a court decision, is assumed to be in the best interest of the child. In Norway, mediation is therefore mandatory for all parents with children under the age of 16 before they can bring an action before the court in matters relating to custody, residence or contact. In Sweden the corresponding procedure is a mandatory information meeting for the parents before they can bring an action before the court. The aim is for the parents, after participating in the mediation- or information meetings, to come to an agreement on issues concerning the child. This way a court decision in the matter is avoided. The purpose of the essay is to, through the application of the comparative method, examine what similarities and differences there are between Swedish and Norwegian legislation, regarding the mandatory information- and mediation meetings in custody cases. This essay states that there are several similarities between the regulations of the two countries. Such a similarity is the aim of the legislation, to avoid court proceedings by making it easier for parents to reach consensual agreements. Furthermore, both institutes are intended to enter at an early stage of the process to spare children from a possible conflict between the parents. Several differences can also be determined. The most significant difference between the Swedish and the Norwegian set-up is the difference in purpose. In Norway, the purpose of mediation is for the parents to reach a consensual solution. In Sweden, on the other hand, the purpose of the information meeting is for the parents to receive relevant information, so that in the long run they will be able to reach a consensual solution.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.012

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)→Same topicMagnetic Field Sensors Techniques→French-language works237,207→