Creating a System for All Parents: Rethinking Procedural and Evidentiary Rules in Proceedings with Self-Represented Litigants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through qualitative interviews undertaken with ten judges at the Superior Court of Québec, this study considers the procedural and evidentiary challenges faced by self-represented litigants in family law matters. Subsequently, this paper offers solutions to the problems identified. The goal of this paper is to provide legal participants with concrete techniques to facilitate proceedings with SRLs that uphold their duty of impartiality and duty of assistance. While this article will likely be useful for judges who engage with SRLs daily, it will also be of interest to those working on issues relating to access to justice, SRLs, as well as procedural and evidentiary law reform. This paper urges its readers to think critically about our legal system. Who has our legal system been created for, yet who must actually use it?\nGrâce à des d’entrevues qualitatives menées auprès de dix juges de la Cour supérieure du Québec, nous examinons dans le présent article les défis en matière de procédure et de preuve auxquels font face les justiciables qui ne sont pas représentés par un avocat dans les affaires de droit de la famille. Ensuite, nous proposons des solutions aux problèmes identifiés. L’objectif de cet article est de fournir aux intervenants juridiques des techniques concrètes pour faciliter les procédures avec les justiciables sans avocat tout en respectant leur devoir d’impartialité et leur devoir d’assistance. Bien que cet article soit susceptible d’être utile aux juges qui travaillent quotidiennement avec des justiciables non représentés par un avocat, il intéressera également ceux qui travaillent sur des questions liées à l’accès à la justice, aux justiciables sans avocat, ainsi qu’à la réforme du droit en matière de procédure et de preuve. Dans l’article, nous incitons les lecteurs à réfléchir de manière critique à notre système juridique. Pour qui notre système juridique a-t-il été créé, et qui doit réellement l’utiliser?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".