Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRACTITIONERS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE OFTEN DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS OPERAT ing on the margins of the formal justice system. However, they differ with regard to how they problematize this status. Some embrace what seems tantamount to a nomadic existence and view their outsider role as an opportunity to challenge the norms and values of the criminal justice system; others see greater inclusion in the formal justice system as their ultimate goal. What is the basis of this claim to marginality? In this article, we examine the tensions that exist the restorative justice movement as it seeks to construct for itself a collective identity and define its broader goals. Our main contention is that the marginal status claimed by most restorative justice practitioners, and their fears of cooptation, are more imagined than real; indeed, restorative justice programs appear largely as outsiders within the criminal justice system. Nonetheless, it may be possible for restorative justice programs to pursue a specific form of nomadism ? a defined by the creation of subaltern counterpublics (Fraser, 1997) that would serve as the basis for interventions into the criminal justice system. In this manner, a transformative politics of restorative justice would involve a distancing from, and engagement with, the criminal justice system to challenge and rewrite the retributive codes of this system without becoming a mere appendage to its normal operation. Nomadic Justice The postmodern critique of the will to totality defined the dominant paradigms of social theory (e.g., Marxism, Parsonian functionalism) and brought into prominence the interpretation of social phenomena as decentered, frag
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".