The Semantics of Repression: Linking, Opposing, and Linking again Rehabilitation and Protection of Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having explored the youth criminal legislation enacted by the Canadian federal government from the year 1857 to the year 2005, the author attempts to demonstrate that youth criminal intervention has moved from the notion of "child protection" to the notion of "protection of society." The significance of this theoretical shift is that, while the former sort of intervention is mostly concerned with the notions of "reintegration" and "inclusion", the latter is concerned with the notions of "deterrence" and "exclusion." For this study, the author first analyzes the societal factors that led Canadian parliamentarians to enact the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908). In addition, she focuses on a specific amendment enacted in the year 1924 that "increased" the number of behaviors to be controlled through criminal law legislation. Second, the author discusses the circumstances that led parliamentarians to enact the Young Offenders Act (1982) and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002). Moreover, she examines an amendment enacted in the year 1995 that modified the declaration of principles of the Young Offenders Act by introducing the notion of "crime prevention." Finally, she analyzes a case law released in the year 2003 by the Quebec Court of Appeal, Québec v. Canada . This decision declared the unconstitutionality of some specific sections of Bill C-7 (current Youth Criminal Justice Act ) that allow the disclosure of young offenders' private information and reverse the onus probandi for the imposition of adult sentences on young offenders. The position of the author is that, even though those sections can be unconstitutional, they are coherent with current theoretical trends in the area of youth criminal law intervention.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".