(Un)regulation of extraordinary expenses for children in family crises: comparative insights from the canadian model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regulation of extraordinary expenses in separation and divorce proceedings represents a critical challenge in Italian Family Law. The absence of centralized legislation and uniform guidelines has resulted in fragmented practices across courts, amplifying judicial discretion and generating uncertainty for parents. This article provides the results of a systematic mapping of the protocols adopted by Italian courts, revealing significant disparities in the management of extraordinary medical, educational, and extracurricular expenses, both nationally and within individual Court of Appeal Districts. Conversely, drawing on the Canadian model, which employs federal uniform guidelines to regulate extraordinary expenses, this study investigates how such an approach can balance certainty, predictability, fairness, and flexibility. Employing a methodology that integrates inductive and deductive approaches – including case study analysis and a review of normative and doctrinal sources from a comparative perspective – therefore, the article proposes actionable recommendations to harmonize Italian practices, aiming to reduce legal uncertainty and improve outcomes for families.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".