Issues in Aboriginal Youth Justice and the Youth Criminal Justice Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first part of the chapter, the author will review Aboriginal youth over-involvement in the criminal justice system, involving a comparison of Aboriginal and Canadian justice concepts and processes, particularly in relation to sentencing. The mismatch between Aboriginal expectations and mainstream expectations is one part of the reason for Aboriginal overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. It is part of the larger experience of cultural dislocation due to the negative impact of colonization and racism on current social and economic circumstances. This review will then lead into a discussion of how holistic healing approaches to youth crime offer a more humane means of dealing with this problem.The last section of this chapter will examine the specific mechanisms within the new YCJA to determine how well they can accommodate Aboriginal perspectives and processes. While the YCJA offers much promise, there are significant barriers to implementing positive change found in both the lack of provincial resources to full implement the spirit of the YCJA and the attitudinal resistance to the paradigm shift that the Act requires. Even if these barriers are overcome, the YCJA is still largely a criminal justice response to Aboriginal youth social adjustment problems. Rehabilitation is only one of the options promoted by the Act, as proportional accountability (i.e. punishment) remains an important and integral part. Although custody is to be used sparingly, it is still a significant part of the tools available. Aboriginal healing responses to crime must still largely find their expression in the gaps and gullies of this discretion built into the system.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".