Sense of Community and Restorative Justice as Models of Support: Female Survivors of Sexual Abuse and Males Who Have Offended Sexually
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual abuse is a social phenomenon that adversely affects the lives of the victims, those who have offended and the surrounding community. It is an issue of public health, policy, and justice. Currently, few research studies explore the ability of community agencies to support all persons affected by sexual abuse, and even fewer studies examining the perspectives and experiences of individuals left searching for remediation or healing. The Revive program, part of Community Justice Initiatives in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada functions as a mutual-aid support group for persons affected by sexual abuse, using principles of restorative justice to guide their mission. This research gave voice to those who participate in Revive. Two focus groups were conducted, one with women survivors (n = 4) of sexual abuse and one with men who had offended sexually (n = 9). Findings indicate the powerful capability of a community-based program to heal individuals and relationships, and safely reintegrate both women survivors and males who have offended sexually. Specifically, the findings speak to entree (hearing about the program, initial perception and experience of the program), processes (how the program supports its members, how members support one another), structures (check-in and check-out processes, administration and staff, not having an agenda for group meetings), and outcomes (restorative justice, goals, needs fulfilment, and overall support that members receive). Similarities and differences between the experiences of women survivors and men who have offended sexually, in relation to their membership in their Revive groups, are discussed and explored. A theory of sense of community is used to highlight the connectedness amongst group members and the positive outcomes as a result of their membership and participation in Revive. Restorative justice principles are identified as common goals towards which survivors and offenders both strive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".