Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian law has long recognized that because youth have limited capacities and greater vulnerability, they should be afforded a special status in the criminal justice system. Since the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”) came into force in 2003, the Supreme Court has favoured a “pro-youth” interpretation of the Act, restricting the use of custody for young offenders and protecting their legal rights. The 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in R. v. B. (D.) significantly extended this protective approach, recognizing that the principle of the “diminished moral blameworthiness” of youth in the criminal justice system has not only a statutory basis, but also a constitutional foundation. Writing for a five-member majority of the Court, Abella J. ruled that provisions of the YCJA that impose an obligation on a youth found guilty of a very serious offence to justify not imposing an adult sentence are unconstitutional. The majority also took a more expansive view of section 7 of the Charter, finding that the social and psychological stresses associated with identifying publicity are engaged if a youth is named in media reports, and ruled unconstitutional a provision of the YCJA requiring a youth found guilty of one of the most serious offences and receiving a youth sentence to justify a ban on the publication of identifying information. Significantly, the Court was unanimous in accepting that the diminished moral blameworthiness of youth is a principle of fundamental justice, though it was sharply divided in the application of this newly recognized principle. R.v. B. (D.) is the most important judgment of the Court regarding youth offending in the history of Canada, and will both affect judicial approaches to youth justice issues and constrain possible legislative reforms that might make the youth system more “adult-like”. The decision also suggests that a narrow majority of the Court is prepared to take a relatively broad approach to section 7 of the Charter.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".